Questions tagged [relations]

For questions concerning partial orders, equivalence relations, properties of relations (transitive, symmetric, etc), a composition of relations, or anything else concerning a relation on a set.

A relation $R$ on a set $X \times Y$ (sometimes also called a relation between $X$ and $Y$) is any subset of $X\times Y$. So a relation is any set of ordered pairs $(x,y)$ such that $x\in X$ and $y \in Y$. Often we write $x\mathrel R y$ instead of $(x,y)\in R$. Sometimes we say a relation is defined on a single set $X$, but this just means that we're letting the relation $R$ be a subset of $X \times X$.

Here are some examples of relations:

  • For a very abstract example of a relation, take $X = \{1,2,3\}$ and $Y = \{a,b,c,d\}$, and let $R = \{(1,b),(3,c),(3,d),(2,c),(2,d)\}$. This $R$ is a relation on $X \times Y$. Fun fact, there are $2^{12}$ distinct relations you could put on $X \times Y$.

  • A function $f\colon X\to Y$ can be defined as a relation on $X \times Y$. The pairs in $X \times Y$ that are members of the relation are the input-output pairs $(x, f(x))$.

  • A partial order is a relation that mimics the notion of one element being greater/less than the other. An example of a partial order is the relation $\leq$ on $\mathbf{Z} \times \mathbf{Z}$ where for two integers $n$ and $m$ we say $n \leq m$ if $n$ is less than or equal to $m$.

  • Given a set $X$, let $\mathcal{P}(X)$ denote the set of all subsets of $X$. We can define a partial order $\subseteq$ on $\mathcal{P}(X)$ by saying that for two susbsets $A$ and $B$ of $X$, $A \subseteq B$ if $A$ is a subset of $B$.

  • An equivalence relation is a relation that mimics the notion of two things being "equal". For example, on the set $\mathbf{Z}$ of integers let's define the relation $\equiv_{37}$ on $\mathbf{Z}\times \mathbf{Z}$ by saying $a\equiv_{37} b$ if both $a$ and $b$ give the same remainder when divided by $37$. If $a \equiv_{37} b$ we say that $a$ and $b$ are congruent modulo $37$.

  • Let $T$ be the set of all triangles in the plane. An example of an equivalence relation on $T$ is the relation of two triangles being congruent.

4534 questions
157
votes
15 answers

Are there real-life relations which are symmetric and reflexive but not transitive?

Inspired by Halmos (Naive Set Theory) . . . For each of these three possible properties [reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity], find a relation that does not have that property but does have the other two. One can construct each of these…
000
  • 5,622
  • 2
  • 22
  • 38
91
votes
6 answers

Why isn't reflexivity redundant in the definition of equivalence relation?

An equivalence relation is defined by three properties: reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity. Doesn't symmetry and transitivity implies reflexivity? Consider the following argument. For any $a$ and $b$, $a R b$ implies $b R a$ by symmetry. Using…
Chao Xu
  • 5,618
  • 3
  • 36
  • 47
40
votes
3 answers

How should I be avoiding this mistake? (To avoid missing solutions)

First of all, I am sorry if this is a question too simple or stupid. Consider the equation: $$ \log((x+2)^2) = 2 \log(5) $$ If I apply the logarithm law $ \log_a(b^c) = c \log_a(b) $ $$ \begin{align} 2 \log(x+2) & = 2 \log(5) \\ \log(x+2) &= \log(5)…
bp99
  • 1,095
  • 13
  • 26
30
votes
9 answers

What is the correct way to think about quotient sets and equivalence relations?

Perhaps there is not a correct way to think about it but I would want to know how others think about it. Here are my problems/questions, after my definitions: Definition 1. Let $X$ be a set and $\sim$ be an equivalence relation on $X$. Then…
28
votes
5 answers

Antisymmetric Relations

Given a set $\{1,2,3,4\}$, how is the following relation $R$ antisymmetric? $$R = \{(1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4)\}$$ Note: Antisymmetric is the idea that if $(a,b)$ is in $R$ and $(b,a)$ is in $R$, then $a = b$. In my textbook it says the above is…
user1234440
  • 541
  • 2
  • 7
  • 12
25
votes
2 answers

What is the smallest digraph whose reflexive, symmetric, transitive closures (in all combinations) are distinct?

For any given directed graph, we may consider the various closures of it with respect to reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, in any combination, like this: For the particular graph shown above, this process results in eight distinct graphs,…
JDH
  • 42,670
  • 14
  • 119
  • 189
23
votes
5 answers

'Does not necessarily equal' symbol

What symbol would I use if I wanted to express that, in the context of some binary relation $P$ implied from context, that $\exists (a,b)\in P: a\ne b$, but not to the extent that $\forall (a,b) \in P: a\ne b$. The use of this would be if one were…
AJMansfield
  • 1,015
  • 1
  • 6
  • 22
23
votes
10 answers

Why is belonging not transitive?

From Halmos's Naive Set Theory, section 1: Observe, along the same lines, that inclusion is transitive, whereas belonging is not. Everyday examples, involving, for instance, super-organizations whose members are organizations, will readily occur to…
New Student
  • 407
  • 3
  • 9
23
votes
7 answers

Proof that the empty set is a relation

In the book Naive Set Theory, Halmos mentions that the "The least exciting relation is the empty one." and proves that the empty set is a set of ordered pairs because there is no element of the empty set that is not an ordered pair. Since the empty…
Budge
  • 274
  • 2
  • 10
22
votes
3 answers

Symbol for unknown relation?

When solving equations like $$\begin{align} 4x-4 &=\frac{(2x)^2}{x} \\ -4 &= \frac{4x^2}{x} -4x \\ -4 &= 4x -4x \\[0.2em] -4 &= 0\end{align}$$ using the equality-symbol feels like abuse of notation, since you'll end up with $-4=0$, which is not an…
Frank Vel
  • 5,231
  • 6
  • 33
  • 64
22
votes
4 answers

Understanding equivalence class, equivalence relation, partition

I'm having difficulty grasping a couple of set theory concepts, specifically concepts dealing with relations. Here are the ones I'm having trouble with and their definitions. 1) The collection of equivalence classes w.r.t. $R$ Def: Let $R$ be an…
22
votes
1 answer

Prove that the empty relation is Transitive, Symmetric but not Reflexive

Question: Let $R$ be a relation on a set $A$. Prove that if $A$ is non-empty, the empty relation is not reflexive on $A$. the empty relation is symmetric and transitive for every set $A$. My Solution: For a relation to be reflexive: For all…
George J. Adams
  • 843
  • 3
  • 11
  • 23
19
votes
3 answers

Is my understanding of antisymmetric and symmetric relations correct?

So I'm having a hard time grasping how a relation can be both antisymmetric and symmetric, or neither. Are my examples correct? symmetric & antisymmetric R ={(1,1),(2,2),(3,3)} not symmetric & not antisymmetric R = { (1,2),(2,1),(3,4) }
jantristanmilan
  • 975
  • 6
  • 19
  • 31
19
votes
6 answers

Number of relations that are both symmetric and reflexive

Consider a non-empty set A containing n objects. How many relations on A are both symmetric and reflexive? The answer to this is $2^p$ where $p=$ $n \choose 2$. However, I dont understand why this is so. Can anyone explain this?
Snowman
  • 2,624
  • 10
  • 38
  • 47
18
votes
4 answers

Is an anti-symmetric and asymmetric relation the same? Are irreflexive and anti reflexive the same?

I don't understand the difference between an anti symmetric and asymmetric relation. From my understanding, it is asymmetric if there is not any element where: if (x,y) (y,x). But what if you have only one (not all) double arrow (e.g. one where if…
user138664
  • 211
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
1
2 3
99 100