Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Studying relation properties. My definition of a transitive relation is as follows:

A relation is transitive if and only if $\forall a,b,c \in A [aRb \land bRc \implies aRc]$

My question is: if $aRb \land bRc$ never occurs in the first place, is the relation considered transitive?

I ask this because when I read $\forall a,b,c \in A [aRb \land bRc \implies aRc]$ I read it as follows: "when $a$ relates with $b$ and $b$ relates with $c$, $a$ relates to $c$". But since this "when" never happens, there is no condition to evaluate to decide if it is transitive or not.

The same issue occurs with antisymmetry, where $\forall a,b \in A[aRb \land bRa \implies a = b]$ - what if $aRb \land bRa$ never occurs in the first place?


I just remembered that $F_0\implies whatever$ is always $V_0$.... I guess this answers my question... kinda.

share|cite|improve this question
Short answer: Yes. – ՃՃՃ Dec 6 '12 at 1:32
You may want to look at Vacous truth. – ՃՃՃ Dec 6 '12 at 1:34
up vote 8 down vote accepted

The answer is yes in both cases; these are examples of statements that are vacuously true, to use the usual expression. To see why we would want to use this interpretation, ask yourself what it would take in order to show that $R$ is not transitive: you’d need to find elements $a,b,c\in A$ such that $a~R~b$, $b~R~c$, and yet $a~\not R~c$. But if there are no elements $a,b,c\in A$ such that $a~R~b$ and $b~R~c$, you can’t possibly find such a counterexample. In short, there is no counterexample to transitivity of $R$, so by default $R$ must be transitive.

Another way to put it: transitivity says that when certain conditions are met, a certain thing has to happen. It says nothing about cases in which those conditions are never met: it requires nothing in those cases, so it cannot possibly fail.

share|cite|improve this answer
If they ask me to verify if a relation is transitive or not and this scenario occurs, how should I word it out? Should I say "it is vacuously true"? – Zol Tun Kul Dec 6 '12 at 1:41
@Omega I would say it is. Or I would simply cite it as 'vacuous truth'. – 000 Dec 6 '12 at 1:48
@Omega: That works. ‘Is this relation transitive?’ ‘Yes, vacuously so.’ ‘Is it true that this relation is transitive?’ ‘Yes, it’s vacuously true’. – Brian M. Scott Dec 6 '12 at 2:28 is...You can consider both properties to hold, unless there exists a counterexample:

Transitivity fails IF AND ONLY IF: $\quad \exists a, b, c \in A[a R b \land bRc \land \lnot (a R c)]$

Likewise for antisymmetry:

Antisymmetry fails IF AND ONLY IF: $\quad \exists a,b \in A[aRb \land bRa \land a \neq b]$

share|cite|improve this answer

You have an if-then statement, $P\Rightarrow Q$. If $P$ is false, then the if-then statement is true. So, if you have a relation where $aRb\wedge bRc$ never occurs, it would be false to state $aRb\wedge bRc$.

share|cite|improve this answer

On the set $\{-1,1\}$ with $R$ defined $xRy$ if $y=-x$, we see that $R$ is transitive by vacuity.

share|cite|improve this answer
@downvoter I made an error in my original calculations. I've corrected this. – 000 Dec 6 '12 at 11:34

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.