I need an example of a relation which is simultaneously not reflexive, not symmetric, and not transitive. Any accessible examples? Thanks in advance.
Asked
Active
Viewed 1.1k times
13
-
10$a,b\in \mathbb{Z}$, $a\sim b$ iff $b=a+1$. – Dario Jul 01 '14 at 11:59
-
36For any people $x, y$, try "$x$ loves $y$" :) – Shaun Jul 01 '14 at 12:22
-
1@Shaun But what about the narcissists? For all narcissists, $x$ loves $x$. :P – apnorton Jul 01 '14 at 15:34
-
4Not all people are narcissists, @anorton $\ddot\smile$ – Shaun Jul 01 '14 at 15:37
-
2@Shaun whoops. I was getting "not reflexive" confused with "irreflexive" – apnorton Jul 01 '14 at 15:38
-
3A fun follow-on to your question is: what is the size of the smallest set on which you can define such a relation? – Eric Lippert Jul 01 '14 at 19:56
-
1@EricLippert $3$? $a \not\to a$, $a \to b \to c$, $a \not\to c$, $b \not\to a$,. If it were only "not reflexive, not transitive", then $2$ would be sufficient ($a \sim b$, $b \sim a$, $a \not\sim a$). – M. Vinay Jul 02 '14 at 04:43
10 Answers
57
Here's a non-mathematical one: "is the father of".
You are not your own father. You are not your father's father. Your father's father is not your father.
M. Vinay
- 9,004
-
1
-
14It's actually stronger than "not reflexive, symmetric or transitive", it's irreflexive ($\forall x, x \not\sim x$), asymmetric ($x \sim y \Rightarrow y \not\sim x$), and antitransitive ($(x \sim y \wedge y \sim z) \Rightarrow x \not\sim z$). – M. Vinay Jul 01 '14 at 12:36
-
11
-
4
-
7I'm not complaining, just observing: this is in some sense the same answer as Dario's comment to the question. – Steve Jessop Jul 01 '14 at 18:11
-
2@SteveJessop Ah, I see "$a$ is the predecessor of $b$". Good observation. – M. Vinay Jul 02 '14 at 02:37
16
Think of three points $u, v, w$ with relation $R = \{(u, v), (v, w) \}$. So $u$ is related to $v$ and $v$ is related to $w$. This is not reflexive since $(u,u) \notin R$, not symmetric because $(v, u) \notin R$ and not transitive because $(u, w) \notin R$.
Math Student 020
- 1,599
11
What beats what in Roshambo or "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is such a relation.
not reflexive: rock does not beat rock.
not symmetric: rock beats scissors, but scissors does not beat rock.
not transitive: rock beats scissors and scissors beats paper, but rock does not beat paper.
The same is true of "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock".
robjohn
- 345,667
7
A simple one is : Define $R$ on $\mathbb{Z}$ by $(x,y)\in R$ if and only if $x-y=10$.
Debashish
- 1,714
6
On $\mathbb{N}$, consider $$a \sim b \iff a +2b = 5,$$ then
$1\nsim 1$,
$3\sim 1$ but $1 \nsim 3$,
$3\sim 1, 1 \sim 2$ but $3 \nsim 2$.
Surb
- 55,662
-
Please don't use a symbol that's a variant of "$=$" for a relation that has none of the properties of equality! – David Richerby Jul 01 '14 at 15:33
-
6
How about: "is the square of", defined on the set of positive integers? In other words, $$a \sim b \iff a=b^2$$
This relation is not reflexive (most numbers are not their own square), not symmetric (if $a$ is the square of $b$ then in most cases $b$ is not the square of $a$) and not transitive (if $a$ is the square of $b$ and $b$ is the square of $c$ then in general $a$ will not be the square of $c$).
Ross Presser
- 248
mweiss
- 23,647
4
Less than, but close: $$a \sim b \iff a < b \ \ \text{ but } \ \ a > (b-1)$$
So
$1\nsim 1$,
$0.5\sim 1$ but $1 \nsim 0.5$,
$0\sim 0.5$, $0.5 \sim 1$, but $0 \nsim 1$.
Scott - Слава Україні
- 1,015
3
Take any directed acyclic graph amd the arcs form an irreflexive, asymmetric antitransitive relation of its nodes. Then add some loops (not to all nodes), back-arcs (not to all of them) and some skip-forward arcs (not to all directed paths) and you have a more general relation with your restrictions.
Ex: 1) Strong version: a->b, b->c, c->d, a->e 2) Then add: a->a, b->a,a->d
isksz
- 31