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

Can a partial order by symmetric in addition to being reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive?

Also, can an equivalence relation be antisymmetric aside from being reflexive, symmetric, and transitive?

All of the definitions I see only state that a relation has to be those things in order for it to be considered a partial order or an equivalence relation. The definitions do not state that it has to be NOT antisymmetric or NOT symmetric.

share|cite|improve this question
Consider a very tiny set, or a very very tiny set. – André Nicolas Apr 4 '11 at 23:28
To be precise, it's the partial order, not the partially ordered set, that is reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive. – joriki Apr 4 '11 at 23:30
Please don't rely on the title for content. The body of the post should be self-contained. It's rather jarring to start reading a post that starts with "Also..." – Arturo Magidin Apr 5 '11 at 2:08
up vote 4 down vote accepted

The only reflexive, symmetric, and antisymmetric relation on a set $X$ is $\{(x,x):x\in X\}$. Reason: If $(x,y)$ is in the relation, then by symmetry so is $(y,x)$, then by antisymmetry $x=y$. This shows that the relation is contained in $\{(x,x):x\in X\}$, and the other containment is the definition of reflexivity.

share|cite|improve this answer

Yes, although a poset whose partial ordering is symmetric will have a 'trivial' partial ordering, namely $a \leq b \Rightarrow a=b$

share|cite|improve this answer

The only way for a partially ordered set to be symmetric is if no two distinct elements $x$ and $y$ are comparable. Otherwise, if there is some $x<y$, then by symmetry $y<x$. Transitivity then implies $x<x$ which contradicts the fact that partial orders are irreflexive.

Edit: I was using a slightly different definition of partial order. (Irreflexive and transitive.)

share|cite|improve this answer
There are different definitions of partial orders, corresponding to $<$ and $\le$. The question implied that the one where a partial order is reflexive ($\le$) is being used. – joriki Apr 4 '11 at 23:28
@joriki: Thanks, I didn't notice that, although I should have! – Grumpy Parsnip Apr 4 '11 at 23:34

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.