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.
  1. Wikipedia article for matroids says

    For all elements $a$, and $b$ of $E$ and all subsets $Y$ of $E$, if $a\in\operatorname{cl}(Y\cup b) \setminus Y$ then $b\in\operatorname{cl}(Y\cup a) \setminus Y.$ ... (it) is sometimes called the Mac Lane–Steinitz exchange property.

    Another article for closure says:

    the exchange property: If $x$ is in the closure of the union of $A$ and $\{y\}$ but not in the closure of $A$, then $y$ is in the closure of the union of $A$ and $\{x\}$.

    As far as I can tell they seem not equivalent, because the first one writes $a$ not in $Y$, and second one writes $x$ not in the closure of $A$. So I wonder if one of them is wrong for defining the exchange property, or I fail to see their equivalence?

  2. I am also not able to see if the following two definitions of the anti-exchange property for a closure operator are equivalent: from antimatroid at Wikipedia:

    anti-exchange axiom: If neither $y$ nor $z$ belong to $τ(S)$, but $z$ belongs to $τ(S \cup \{y\})$, then $y$ does not belong to $τ(S\cup \{z\})$.

    from closure at Wikipedia:

    the anti-exchange property: If $x$ is not contained in the union of $A$ and $\{y\}$, but in its closure, then $y$ is not contained in the closure of the union of $A$ and $\{x\}$.

Thanks and regards!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Question 1: The first of the quoted exchange properties is wrong as it stands. It would become correct (and equivalent to the second version) if it were restricted to closed sets $Y$.

Question 2: The first quoted version is again wrong, but only because it neglects to exclude the possibility that $y=z$. If you add $y\neq z$ to the hypotheses, then it becomes correct. The second version is also wrong (consider the case where $x$ and $y$ are distinct points in the closure of $A$), but it becomes correct if you add the hypothesis that $A$ is closed.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! What are some standard references for the definitions? I guess the definitions are same for (anti)matroids and outside (anti)matroids, as long as there is a closure operator (defined in its Wikipedia page)? –  Tim Jan 7 '13 at 21:03
    
Can the anti-exchange property be defined equivalently as "If $y \neq z$ and neither $y$ nor $z$ belong to $τ(S)$, then $z$ belongs to $τ(S∪{y})$ if and only if $y$ does not belong to $τ(S∪{z})$"? (I ask this, because I saw elsewhere the exchange property can be defined equivalently as "If neither $y$ nor $z$ belong to $τ(S)$, then $z$ belongs to $τ(S∪{y})$ if and only if $y$ not belong to $τ(S∪{z})$", which I assume is correct.) –  Tim Jan 7 '13 at 21:10
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.