edited by
675 views
4 votes
4 votes

Consider the following sentences :

  1. $[R, | ]$ is poset. Where $R$ is the set of all real numbers and $|$ is the divisibility relation i.e. for any $a,b$ in $R, a|b$ iff there is some $c$ in $R$ such that $b=a\ast c.$
  2. If a relation $R$ on a set $A$ is irreflexive and transitive then $R$ is antisymmetric.

Which of the above statements is correct?

  1. Only $1$
  2. Only $2$
  3. Both
  4. None
edited by

2 Answers

Best answer
3 votes
3 votes

Generally, the mistake that we do with statement S1 is that, we assume that since $[N,|]$ is a poset, so is the $[R,|]$. But what we fundamentally miss is, that the divisibility relation in $N$ satisfies the antisymmetric property. Whereas, $R$ doesn’t provide antisymmetric property with the divisibility relation. This is also the case with $Z,Q,Q’$ with the divisibility relation.

Ex: (2,-2) and (-2,2) both belong to the relation $[R,|]$. Hence, not a Poset.

Question: 1. If $A\subset B$ and $(A,\preceq)$ is a poset then $(B,\preceq)$ is also a Poset?

  1. If $A\subset B$ and $(B,\preceq)$ is a poset then $(A,\preceq)$ is also a Poset?

S2: If a relation $R$(represents a relation and not the set of real numbers) on a set $A$ is irreflexive and transitive then $R$ is antisymmetric.

To check if the S2 is true we just need to check if the relation $R$ is antisymmetric. Explicitly, we need to check if both $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,a)\in R$, with $a\neq b$. If they do then $R$ is not anti-symmetric, else $R$ is antisymmetric.

Let, $a\neq b$ . Assume that, $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,a)\in R$. Then, by $transitivity$ of relation $R$, we have that $(a,a)\in R$. But, this is a contradiction, as $R$   is   $irreflexive$. Thus, our assumption was wrong.

Hence, $R$ is $antisymmetric$. So, S2 is True.

selected by
5 votes
5 votes
1. $[ R,| ]$ is not antisymmetric as $2|-2, -2|2.$ It is reflexive, transitive.

2. Let relation $R$ be Irreflexive & Transitive. Then $R$ is Anti-symmetric.

Proof by Contradiction:

Assume $R$ is  Irreflexive & Transitive but Not Anti-symmetric. Since, $R$ is Irreflexive, to say that $R$ is not antisym, we have to have two pairs $(a,b), (b,a)$ such that $a \neq b,$ in $R$. But since $R$ is Transitive, so, $(a,a) \in R$ which brings Contradiction because $R$ is irreflexive.
edited by
Answer:

Related questions

4 votes
4 votes
1 answer
1
GO Classes asked May 12, 2022
530 views
For any integers $x,y,$ we say that $x$ divides $y$ iff there is some integer $z$ such that $y = x\ast z.$Let $[N, \leq]$ is a partial order relation defined on natural n...
3 votes
3 votes
1 answer
2
GO Classes asked May 12, 2022
423 views
Let $R$ be a relation from a set $A$ to a set $B.$ The inverse relation from $B$ to $A,$ denoted by $R^{-1}$ , is the set of ordered pairs $\{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\}$ .$...
3 votes
3 votes
1 answer
3
GO Classes asked May 12, 2022
376 views
Suppose $A$ is a finite set of five elements. Then the cardinality of the largest partial order relation possible on $A$ is _______
2 votes
2 votes
1 answer
4
GO Classes asked May 12, 2022
515 views
Let $[N, \leq ]$ is a partial order relation defined on natural numbers, where “$\leq$” is the “less than equal to” relation defined on $N = \{ 0,1,2,3,\dots \}.$...