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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a set $A = \{1, 2, 3\}$.

Relation $S = \{(1, 1), (1, 2), (3, 1) \}$

Relation $T = \{(1, 1), (3, 2), (3, 1) \}$

$S$ is not transitive, but $T$ is transitive. Why is that?

A relation $R$ transitive if $(a,b),(b,c)\in R\Rightarrow (a,c)\in R$.

In $S$, we have $(1, 1), (1, 2)$, and we also have $(1, 2)$. And we have $(3, 1), (1, 1)$, and also $(3, 1)$.

In $T$, we have $(3, 1), (1, 1)$, and we also have $(3, 1)$.

It seems like we have the same kind of situations in both $S$ and $T$, except $S$ has another $a, b, c$ triplet. What makes T transitive but S not?

share|cite|improve this question
Oops, don't know why I didn't see $(3,1)$ and $(1,2)$, guess I was thinking too hard. – badjr Dec 6 '12 at 2:06
up vote 4 down vote accepted

$S$ is not transitive as @Conan noted. $T$ is transitive,because you can easily check that for $(1,1)$ the only pair which satisfy the definition is $(3,1)$: $$(1,1),(3,1)\in T\Rightarrow (3,1)\in T$$ For other pairs the antecedent of the definition is always wrong so the whole definition is satisfied for $T$.

share|cite|improve this answer

deezy, in S, we have (3,1) and (1,2), but we do not have (3,2)

share|cite|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.