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

This will be a short question. Let $x$, $y$, $z$ be three elements from any set. Is the following:

$$x \ne y \ne z \tag{1}$$

Equivalent to:

$$x \ne y, ~ ~ y \ne z, ~ ~ z \ne x \tag{2}$$

Or simply:

$$x \ne y, ~ ~ y \ne z \tag{3}$$

Is it even well-defined? I know what $x = y = z$ implies but what about negation? I know I could use $x \ne y \ne z \ne x$ to "make sure" but I was interested in knowing what $(1)$ really means.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 14 down vote accepted

This is more of a personal convention than an actual answer regarding what it commonly means (although I'm pretty sure my convention is other people's too).

Given a binary relation $\triangle$ on some set $X$ and $x_1,\ldots, x_n\in X$ for some $n\in \Bbb N$, I define $$x_1\triangle x_2\triangle \cdots\triangle x_n$$ as $$(x_1\triangle x_2)\wedge\cdots \wedge (x_{n-1}\triangle x_n)$$

Under this convention, $x\neq y\neq z$ should be read $x\neq y\, \wedge y\neq z$.

Note that $x=y=z$ is equivalent to $x=y\wedge y=z \wedge x=z$ only because the equality is transitive.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1 This needs a "nice answer" badge pinned to it! too bad it doesn't also have a $\checkmark$ to the left of it! ;-) – amWhy Apr 18 '13 at 17:08
@amWhy Thanks ^ ^ – Git Gud Apr 18 '13 at 17:20

the first two are not the same

take $x,y,z$ to be 1,2,1 respectively.

The first and third are equivalent.

If $x\neq y\neq z$ is used to mean (2), it is bad notation. it would be better just to say 'x,y,z distinct' to mean (2)

share|cite|improve this answer

We do write often e.g. $x \in y \in z$ as a familiar and acceptable shorthand for $x \in y \land y \in z$. That's evidence that we do allow this kind of notational collapse for conjoined relational propositions even when the relation isn't transitive. (We don't read $x \in y \in z$ as implying $x \in z$.)

Can we similarly write $x \ne y \ne z$ as shorthand for $x \ne y \land y \ne z$, again with no implication that $x \ne z$? You might predict, by parity, that we would: yet I certainly don't think this is common practice. Why not? What makes the difference? Dunno!

I think I have, however, seen the likes of $x \ne y \ne z \ne w $ used as local shorthand for the corresponding symmetric $x \ne y \land x \ne z \land x \ne w \land y \ne z \land y \ne w \land z \ne w$. But I wouldn't adopt such a shorthand without saying what you are doing!

share|cite|improve this answer
A somewhat more common (in my experience) situation where are non-transitive relation is used in chains without implying the relation between non-adjacent terms is the normal subgroup relation $\triangleleft$, as used in the subnormal series $1 = A_0\triangleleft A_1\triangleleft \cdots \triangleleft A_n = G$. – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 14 '13 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.