How to determine if a set relation is Transitive?












1












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    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.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      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.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 8 '18 at 1:31









      Andrés E. Caicedo

      65.4k8158249




      65.4k8158249










      asked Dec 7 '18 at 23:37









      ZepheriahZepheriah

      83




      83






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          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
          $$
          {(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            0












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              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
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              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









              2












              $begingroup$

              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
              $$
              {(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                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
                $$
                {(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  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
                  $$
                  {(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
                  $$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  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
                  $$
                  {(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,2),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4)}
                  $$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 8 '18 at 0:14









                  egregegreg

                  181k1485203




                  181k1485203























                      0












                      $begingroup$

                      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.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          0












                          0








                          0





                          $begingroup$

                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          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.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 7 '18 at 23:45









                          Dan UznanskiDan Uznanski

                          6,62021427




                          6,62021427






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              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





















































                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Plaza Victoria

                              Puebla de Zaragoza

                              Musa