Talk:Reflexive relation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] prove this
How do you prove this?
If (X is a strict order of Y) AND (Y is a partial order of Z) => (X is a strict order of Z) You have to use asymmetry and antisymmetry from both definitions somehow to prove X STRICT Z
Please help!
[edit] Irreflexive
A relation that is not reflexive is irreflexive or aliorelative.
Is that really what irreflexive means? I thought it meant something stronger than not reflexive, namely that no element bears the relation to itself. Josh Cherry 3 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
[edit] irreflexive
i agree,
In logic, a binary relation R over a set X is irreflexive if for all a in X, a is not related to itself. When you replace the "all" part for "some" you will get a relation that is not reflexive nor irreflexive. So, "irreflexive" is stronger than "not reflective". Example: if "a likes b" is irreflexive then someone cannot likes his/her selves; if some but not all people like themselves then "a Likes b" is neither reflexive nor irreflexive
[edit] Positioning of examples and properties
Oleg, i dunno whod get pissed because of the way headings are placed on this tiny page, but I put properties above examples cause examples is long, huge, and easily visible - while properties sorta gets lost in the haze down there. I'm pretty sure placing properties above didn't obscure the examples any. Fresheneesz 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I will put back. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
