Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've proved that there are relations which are both symmetric and antisymmetric ($\forall a \forall b (aRb \rightarrow (a=b))$) and now I'm trying to prove that there are relations which are neither symmetric nor antisymmetric. I got stuck! Any ideas?

share|improve this question
Think of a set that contains a couple of elements. Come up with a relation on that set such that for some pairs of elements (x, y), $x R y$ and $\lnot (y R x)$; but for other pairs of elements (x, y), $x R y$ and $y R x$. –  Tanner Swett Feb 25 '12 at 22:17

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

If every pair satisfies $aRb\rightarrow bRa$ then the relation is symmetric. If there is at least one pair which fails to satisfy that then it is not symmetric.

Similarly if there is at least one pair which has $(aRb\rightarrow bRa)\land a\neq b$ then antisymmetry is also not satisfied.

We can therefore take the following relation: $\{a,b,c\}$ would be our universe and $R=\{\langle a,b\rangle,\langle b,a\rangle,\langle a,c\rangle\}$.

The fact that $aRc\land\lnot cRa$ shows that the relation is not symmetric, but $a\neq b$ and both $aRb$ and $bRa$ hold.

share|improve this answer

Remember that a relation on a set $A$ is just a subset of $A\times A$. So, you can just pick a convenient subset $R \subset A \times A$ so that only for SOME elements $a,b$ of $A$(I.e. not all), both $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ are in $R$. Can you take it from here?

share|improve this answer

Suppose $aRb$ and $bRc$ and $cRb$. And that's as far as $R$ goes. It's not symmetric since $(\text{not }bRa)$ and it's not antisymmetric since both $aRb$ and $bRa$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.