Results 1 to 6 of 6

Math Help - Reflexive, Transitive, Symmetric

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    147

    Reflexive, Transitive, Symmetric

    What are naturally occuring examples of relations that satisfy two of the following properties, but not the third: symmetric, reflexive, and transitive.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member

    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    Lexington, MA (USA)
    Posts
    11,909
    Thanks
    771
    Hello, terr13!

    So far, I have two of the examples . . .


    What are naturally occuring examples of relations that satisfy two of the
    following properties, but not the third: Reflexive, Symmetric, and Transitive?

    Let \circ = "is a brother of"
    . . (The first is male, and both parties are children of the same parents.)

    Reflexive: . x \circ x
    . . x\text{ is a brother of himself . . . True.}

    Symmetric: . \text{If }x \circ y\text{, then }y \circ x
    . . \text{If }x\text{ is a brother of }y\text{, then }y\text{ is a brother of }x.
    Not necessarily true . . . y\text{ could be a {\bf sister} of }x.

    Transitive: . \text{If }x \circ y\text{ and }y \circ z\text{, then }x \circ z
    . . \text{If }x\text{ is a brother of }y\text{ and }y\text{ is a brother of }z\text{ , then }x\text{ is a brother of }x\text{ . . . True}

    The relationship \circ is reflective and transitive, but not symmetric.



    Let \star = "knows" (is acquainted with).

    Reflexive: . x \star x
    . . x\text{ knows himself.}\quad\hdots .True.

    Symmetric: . \text{If }x \star y\text{, then }y \star x
    . . \text{If }x\text{ knows }y\text{, then }y\text{ knows }x\quad\hdots .True

    Transitive: . \text{If }x \star y\text{ and }y \star z\text{, then }x \star z
    . . \text{If }x\text{ knows }y\text{ and }y\text{ knows }z\text{, then }x\text{ knows }z.\quad\hdots .not necessarily true

    The relationship \star is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive.

    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    147
    Thanks for the fast reply, but the one I still have the most trouble with is finding one that is not reflexive. For not symmetric, I was thinking of using \leq. The problem I have with non reflexive is if we say the relation is !, and we have x!y and y!x, if x!y, and y!z, then x!z. But if we look at those two, we can use the symmetric relation in the transitive one and say if x!y, and y!x, then x!x, which proves reflexiveness.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2009
    From
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    3

    Is the brother of is not reflexive

    Let \circ = "is a brother of"
    . . (The first is male, and both parties are children of the same parents.)

    Reflexive: . x \circ x
    . . x\text{ is a brother of himself . . . True.}

    This is not standard English usage. If a mother and father have three children, all male, and you ask one of them "How many brothers do you have?", he will answer "Two" not "Three".
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2009
    From
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    3

    Symmetric and transitive but not reflexive

    Quote Originally Posted by terr13 View Post
    Thanks for the fast reply, but the one I still have the most trouble with is finding one that is not reflexive. For not symmetric, I was thinking of using \leq. The problem I have with non reflexive is if we say the relation is !, and we have x!y and y!x, if x!y, and y!z, then x!z. But if we look at those two, we can use the symmetric relation in the transitive one and say if x!y, and y!x, then x!x, which proves reflexiveness.
    The last sentence is fallacious. Maybe there is an x for which x!y is false for all y. Example: the usual definition of "divides" on all integers requires that m|n if there is a unique integer q for which n = qm. The result is that m|m for every nonzero integer, but 0 does not divide 0, so the relation is not reflexive.

    An easier way to come up with counterexamples is to look at small finite relations. For this problem, try the relation R on {1,2} defined by 2R2 (and nothing else).
    Last edited by SixWingedSeraph; May 20th 2009 at 03:27 PM. Reason: Added title
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Joined
    May 2009
    From
    Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    3

    More about symmetric and transitive but not reflexive

    This sort of relation is called a "partial equivalence relation" and is a big deal in theoretical computer science. You can start learning about it from Wikipedia here:
    Partial equivalence relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. reflexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, transitive?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 8th 2011, 06:47 AM
  2. Transitive, Symmetric, Non-Reflexive Relation
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 24th 2010, 08:12 AM
  3. Symmetric, transitive, not reflexive?
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 2nd 2010, 01:32 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 24th 2010, 08:06 PM
  5. Reflexive, symmetric, and transitive
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 5th 2009, 12:08 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum