How to determine if a set relation is Transitive?
$begingroup$
So, as far as binary relations go, I have a firm grasp on the symmetric, anti-symmetric, and reflexive relations. However, when it comes to transitive relations, I run into a block.
In this problem, for example, I had to determine the transitive closures for the given set that contained: (1,1) (1,2) (2,3) (3,2) (4,4)
The additional elements that would enable this set to be a transitive relation were: (1,3) (2,2) (3,3)
I think I understand that if there is a (1,2) and a (2,3) then there must also be a (1,3). I see that there is a (2,3), but why doesn't there have to be a (3, 4) and a (2,4)? I need some enlightenment as to how I can properly go about determining transitive closures, or determining if a completed relation set includes the right elements to make it transitive.
discrete-mathematics relations
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, as far as binary relations go, I have a firm grasp on the symmetric, anti-symmetric, and reflexive relations. However, when it comes to transitive relations, I run into a block.
In this problem, for example, I had to determine the transitive closures for the given set that contained: (1,1) (1,2) (2,3) (3,2) (4,4)
The additional elements that would enable this set to be a transitive relation were: (1,3) (2,2) (3,3)
I think I understand that if there is a (1,2) and a (2,3) then there must also be a (1,3). I see that there is a (2,3), but why doesn't there have to be a (3, 4) and a (2,4)? I need some enlightenment as to how I can properly go about determining transitive closures, or determining if a completed relation set includes the right elements to make it transitive.
discrete-mathematics relations
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, as far as binary relations go, I have a firm grasp on the symmetric, anti-symmetric, and reflexive relations. However, when it comes to transitive relations, I run into a block.
In this problem, for example, I had to determine the transitive closures for the given set that contained: (1,1) (1,2) (2,3) (3,2) (4,4)
The additional elements that would enable this set to be a transitive relation were: (1,3) (2,2) (3,3)
I think I understand that if there is a (1,2) and a (2,3) then there must also be a (1,3). I see that there is a (2,3), but why doesn't there have to be a (3, 4) and a (2,4)? I need some enlightenment as to how I can properly go about determining transitive closures, or determining if a completed relation set includes the right elements to make it transitive.
discrete-mathematics relations
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
$endgroup$
So, as far as binary relations go, I have a firm grasp on the symmetric, anti-symmetric, and reflexive relations. However, when it comes to transitive relations, I run into a block.
In this problem, for example, I had to determine the transitive closures for the given set that contained: (1,1) (1,2) (2,3) (3,2) (4,4)
The additional elements that would enable this set to be a transitive relation were: (1,3) (2,2) (3,3)
I think I understand that if there is a (1,2) and a (2,3) then there must also be a (1,3). I see that there is a (2,3), but why doesn't there have to be a (3, 4) and a (2,4)? I need some enlightenment as to how I can properly go about determining transitive closures, or determining if a completed relation set includes the right elements to make it transitive.
discrete-mathematics relations
discrete-mathematics relations
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31
Andrés E. Caicedo
65.4k8158248
65.4k8158248
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37
ZepheriahZepheriah
83
83
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's make a list of the pairs together with the ones that can be chained with them by transitivity
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) \
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(1,3)} \
(2,3) & (3,2) & color{red}{(2,2)} \
(3,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(3,3)} \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4)
end{array}
In the first column, a pair; in the second column a pair that can be chained to the first one; in the third column, what's necessary to satisfy transitivity. Red color means the needed pair is missing.
Now we have to repeat the check with the newly added pairs
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) & *\
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) & * \
(1,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & (1,3) & * \
(1,3) & (3,2) & (1,2) \
(1,3) & (3,3) & (1,3) \
(2,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(2,2) & (2,3) & (2,3) \
(2,3) & (3,2) & (2,2) & * \
(2,3) & (3,3) & (2,3) \
(3,2) & (2,3) & (3,3) & * \
(3,3) & (3,2) & (3,2) \
(3,3) & (3,3) & (3,3) \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4) & *
end{array}
None has been marked red, because all pairs in the third column belong to the “second stage” relation. The $*$ denotes a row that has already been considered in the first stage.
If at this stage still some pairs had been missing, a third stage would be necessary.
In this case, however, we're done: the transitive closure is
$$
{(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
$$
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The trick here is to build chains: can you build a chain with these relationships that gets you from $2$ to $4$? If not, then you don't need $(2,4)$ to transitively close the relation. On the other hand, $(2,3)$ and $(3,2)$ can be chained together $(2,3,2)$ and so $(2,2)$ must be in the closure.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3030505%2fhow-to-determine-if-a-set-relation-is-transitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's make a list of the pairs together with the ones that can be chained with them by transitivity
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) \
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(1,3)} \
(2,3) & (3,2) & color{red}{(2,2)} \
(3,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(3,3)} \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4)
end{array}
In the first column, a pair; in the second column a pair that can be chained to the first one; in the third column, what's necessary to satisfy transitivity. Red color means the needed pair is missing.
Now we have to repeat the check with the newly added pairs
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) & *\
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) & * \
(1,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & (1,3) & * \
(1,3) & (3,2) & (1,2) \
(1,3) & (3,3) & (1,3) \
(2,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(2,2) & (2,3) & (2,3) \
(2,3) & (3,2) & (2,2) & * \
(2,3) & (3,3) & (2,3) \
(3,2) & (2,3) & (3,3) & * \
(3,3) & (3,2) & (3,2) \
(3,3) & (3,3) & (3,3) \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4) & *
end{array}
None has been marked red, because all pairs in the third column belong to the “second stage” relation. The $*$ denotes a row that has already been considered in the first stage.
If at this stage still some pairs had been missing, a third stage would be necessary.
In this case, however, we're done: the transitive closure is
$$
{(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
$$
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's make a list of the pairs together with the ones that can be chained with them by transitivity
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) \
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(1,3)} \
(2,3) & (3,2) & color{red}{(2,2)} \
(3,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(3,3)} \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4)
end{array}
In the first column, a pair; in the second column a pair that can be chained to the first one; in the third column, what's necessary to satisfy transitivity. Red color means the needed pair is missing.
Now we have to repeat the check with the newly added pairs
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) & *\
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) & * \
(1,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & (1,3) & * \
(1,3) & (3,2) & (1,2) \
(1,3) & (3,3) & (1,3) \
(2,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(2,2) & (2,3) & (2,3) \
(2,3) & (3,2) & (2,2) & * \
(2,3) & (3,3) & (2,3) \
(3,2) & (2,3) & (3,3) & * \
(3,3) & (3,2) & (3,2) \
(3,3) & (3,3) & (3,3) \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4) & *
end{array}
None has been marked red, because all pairs in the third column belong to the “second stage” relation. The $*$ denotes a row that has already been considered in the first stage.
If at this stage still some pairs had been missing, a third stage would be necessary.
In this case, however, we're done: the transitive closure is
$$
{(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
$$
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's make a list of the pairs together with the ones that can be chained with them by transitivity
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) \
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(1,3)} \
(2,3) & (3,2) & color{red}{(2,2)} \
(3,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(3,3)} \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4)
end{array}
In the first column, a pair; in the second column a pair that can be chained to the first one; in the third column, what's necessary to satisfy transitivity. Red color means the needed pair is missing.
Now we have to repeat the check with the newly added pairs
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) & *\
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) & * \
(1,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & (1,3) & * \
(1,3) & (3,2) & (1,2) \
(1,3) & (3,3) & (1,3) \
(2,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(2,2) & (2,3) & (2,3) \
(2,3) & (3,2) & (2,2) & * \
(2,3) & (3,3) & (2,3) \
(3,2) & (2,3) & (3,3) & * \
(3,3) & (3,2) & (3,2) \
(3,3) & (3,3) & (3,3) \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4) & *
end{array}
None has been marked red, because all pairs in the third column belong to the “second stage” relation. The $*$ denotes a row that has already been considered in the first stage.
If at this stage still some pairs had been missing, a third stage would be necessary.
In this case, however, we're done: the transitive closure is
$$
{(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
$$
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
$endgroup$
Let's make a list of the pairs together with the ones that can be chained with them by transitivity
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) \
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(1,3)} \
(2,3) & (3,2) & color{red}{(2,2)} \
(3,2) & (2,3) & color{red}{(3,3)} \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4)
end{array}
In the first column, a pair; in the second column a pair that can be chained to the first one; in the third column, what's necessary to satisfy transitivity. Red color means the needed pair is missing.
Now we have to repeat the check with the newly added pairs
begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 2 & to \
hline
(1,1) & (1,1) & (1,1) & *\
(1,1) & (1,2) & (1,2) & * \
(1,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(1,2) & (2,3) & (1,3) & * \
(1,3) & (3,2) & (1,2) \
(1,3) & (3,3) & (1,3) \
(2,2) & (2,2) & (2,2) \
(2,2) & (2,3) & (2,3) \
(2,3) & (3,2) & (2,2) & * \
(2,3) & (3,3) & (2,3) \
(3,2) & (2,3) & (3,3) & * \
(3,3) & (3,2) & (3,2) \
(3,3) & (3,3) & (3,3) \
(4,4) & (4,4) & (4,4) & *
end{array}
None has been marked red, because all pairs in the third column belong to the “second stage” relation. The $*$ denotes a row that has already been considered in the first stage.
If at this stage still some pairs had been missing, a third stage would be necessary.
In this case, however, we're done: the transitive closure is
$$
{(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
$$
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14
egregegreg
181k1485203
181k1485203
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The trick here is to build chains: can you build a chain with these relationships that gets you from $2$ to $4$? If not, then you don't need $(2,4)$ to transitively close the relation. On the other hand, $(2,3)$ and $(3,2)$ can be chained together $(2,3,2)$ and so $(2,2)$ must be in the closure.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The trick here is to build chains: can you build a chain with these relationships that gets you from $2$ to $4$? If not, then you don't need $(2,4)$ to transitively close the relation. On the other hand, $(2,3)$ and $(3,2)$ can be chained together $(2,3,2)$ and so $(2,2)$ must be in the closure.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The trick here is to build chains: can you build a chain with these relationships that gets you from $2$ to $4$? If not, then you don't need $(2,4)$ to transitively close the relation. On the other hand, $(2,3)$ and $(3,2)$ can be chained together $(2,3,2)$ and so $(2,2)$ must be in the closure.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
$endgroup$
The trick here is to build chains: can you build a chain with these relationships that gets you from $2$ to $4$? If not, then you don't need $(2,4)$ to transitively close the relation. On the other hand, $(2,3)$ and $(3,2)$ can be chained together $(2,3,2)$ and so $(2,2)$ must be in the closure.
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45
Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski
6,62021427
6,62021427
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3030505%2fhow-to-determine-if-a-set-relation-is-transitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
