Transitive, Symmetric, Reflexive and Equivalence Relations March 20, 2007
Posted by Ninja Clement in Philosophy.trackback
Transitivity
A relation R is transitive if and only if (henceforth abbreviated “iff”), if x is related by R to y, and y is related by R to z, then x is related by R to z. For example, being taller than is a transitive relation: if John is taller than Bill, and Bill is taller than Fred, then it is a logical consequence that John is taller than Fred.
A relation R is intransitive iff, if x is related by R to y, and y is related by R to z, then x is not related by R to z. For example, being next in line to is an intransitive relation: if John is next in line to Bill, and Bill is next in line to Fred, then it is a logical consequence that John is not next in line to Fred.
A relation R is non-transitive iff it is neither transitive nor intransitive. For example, likes is a non-transitive relation: if John likes Bill, and Bill likes Fred, there is no logical consequence concerning John liking Fred.
Symmetricity
A relation R is symmetric iff, if x is related by R to y, then y is related by R to x. For example, being a cousin of is a symmetric relation: if John is a cousin of Bill, then it is a logical consequence that Bill is a cousin of John.
A relation R is asymmetric iff, if x is related by R to y, then y is not related by R to x. For example, being the father of is an asymmetric relation: if John is the father of Bill, then it is a logical consequence that Bill is not the father of John.
A relation R is non-symmetric iff it is neither symmetric nor asymmetric. For example, loves is a non-symmetric relation: if John loves Mary, then, alas, there is no logical consequence concerning Mary loving John.
Reflexivity
A relation R is reflexive iff, everything bears R to itself. For example, being the same height as is a reflexive relation: everything is the same height as itself.
A relation R is irreflexive iff, nothing bears R to itself. For example, being taller than is an irreflexive relation: nothing is taller than itself.
A relation R is non-reflexive iff it is neither reflexive nor irreflexive. For example, loves is a non-reflexive relation: there is no logical reason to infer that somebody loves herself or does not love herself.
Equivalence
A relation R is an equivalence iff R is transitive, symmetric and reflexive. For example, identical is an equivalence relation: if x is identical to y, and y is identical to z, then x is identical to z; if x is identical to y then y is identical to x; and x is identical to x.
Reference: The Philosophy Dept. Vade Mecum: A Survival Guide for Philosophy Students, by Darren Brierton.
excellent explaination thanks 2 ths info i can now get my score more by min 12 marks. i owe u my bright future
I learned this topics so before but you are the only one who explained it clearly. thank you.
Thanks a lot, cause I use this info to complete my course work
Thanks dude helped me a lot.
Thank you a lot. Its a great help to me. Ahh. could you also give a definition of what transitivity, symmetricity, reflexivity are? Thanks
Excellent explanation, helped me a lot thanks
Thanks dear friend, it helped me a lot.
Just go on…;)
so are very difficult this subject
How can we get the no. of equivalent relation in a given set?
Excellent explanation, if u had put some examples that would be much helpful, helped me a lot thanks.
You’re great! two thumbs up..
hey really good explanation
thank you very much.It was really helpful!
That’s a great piece of explanation.I got the real idea of symmetric and other relations by the excellent examples given by you.I was cleared upon that points only after reading this explanations.Than you very much!
clearly explained
Hi.You know the way a relation is transitive if you have a set A and (a,b),(b,c) and (a,c) .What happens if in set A there are more than 3 elements a,b,c and we have a,b,c and d.How do I aply this rule to find out if A={a,b,c,d} is transitive.Thanks a lot
thanks its really very helpful
Very helpful… Thnx