2
$\begingroup$

R is a partial order relation on some set A. Which of the following statements are correct?

a) $R\cup R^{-1}$ is an equivalence relation

b) $R^{2}$ is a partial order relation

c) $R\cap R^{-1}$ is an equivalence relation

I've tried solving this. For (a), I think this is true, but the answer I got say false. My logic was:

for every x, $xRx$ since R is reflexive. R is also ant-symmetric, so for every pair $xRy$, we will have $yRx$ because of the union, and so $R\cup R^{-1}$ is symmetric. Now I tried thinking on transitive, I took an example:

$R={(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(1,2),(2,3),)(1,3)}$

If you do $R\cup R^{-1}$ you get a transitive relation. I can't find an example to break it.

What am I doing wrong ?

For (b) I tried a similar example and go $R^{2}=R$ which shows it's true, but it must have been a private case. How can you explain the fact that (b) is true ? (I am not looking for a formal proof).

For (c), if I use intersection, I get only "reflexive" couples, so this is true. Am I correct on this one at least ?

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Counter example to the transitivity claim in part (a): (1, 2), (3, 2). $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ What, exactly, is your definition of "partial order relation"? I have never seen a requirement that it be reflexive. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ @user247327, I'd assume they are using the standard reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive definition (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set). Something like $\leq$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @user3275222, you may also want to be more specific about what you mean by $R^2$. Is it partial order on $A^2$? Is it an extension of $R$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I'll be more specific. 1. Partial order is indeed reflexive, ant-symmetric and transitive. As for R^2, I mean the composite relation R on R. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 7, 2017 at 20:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

b) If aRRb, bRRa, then some x,y with aRx, xRb, bRy, yRa. Thus...

If aRRb, bRRc, then some x,y with aRx, xRb, bRy, yRc. Thus...

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure whether you are saying (b) is correct or incorrect. Of course it may be helpful to unroll the relation $R^2$ as you outline, but you omit to draw a conclusion one way or the other. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2017 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ William, I don't get what you mean by that. Your first line implies that RR can't be symmetric. But I need it to be anti-symmetric, it's not the same thing. What am I missing ? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2017 at 4:11
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath User didnot want a proof so I gave him a hint. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 9, 2017 at 3:38
  • $\begingroup$ @user3275222. To continue, aRb and bRa. Hence a = b. How are you defining anti-symmetric? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 9, 2017 at 3:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.