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.

In Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis (ed. 3), he provides the following definition (pp. 3)

Definition: Let $S$ be a set. An order on $S$ is a relation, denoted by $<$, with the following two properties:

(1) If $x \in S$ and $y\in S$ then one and only one of the statements: $x<y$, $x=y$, or $y<x$ is true.

(2) If $x,y,z \in S$, if $x<y$ and $y<z$, then $x<z$

The question I asked myself is if property 2 must hold by definition. There answer I had come up with is yes.

Suppose that the above definition is provided with only the first condition. Now take a set, $S=(1,3,5)$. Next define the following order on $S$: $1<3$, $3<5$, $5<1$.

The above order satisfies the first property of the defintion, but not the second. Hence Transitivity as a definition is required.

Is my reasoning correct, and is there anything I missed?

share|improve this question
    
You seem to answer your own question. You ask whether (1) => (2), but you then show that this is not true for the relation you gave for $S$. –  nigelvr May 10 '13 at 16:11
1  
Your proof is correct. Now can you also give an example where transitivity holds, but trichotomy fails? –  Hagen von Eitzen May 10 '13 at 16:12
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

That's a fine example how without transitivity, we would not have what we want: an ordered relation.

Can you think of an example of how transitivity alone will not suffice? (Without the first condition?).

The two properties/conditions are independent: there are relations that are transitive but not trichotomous, and there are relations that are trichotomous, but not transitive. But without having them both hold under a given relation, we would not capture, or define, what we want to define: an ordered relation.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1->✓ I like your answer♥ –  Software May 10 '13 at 17:24
    
:I got in this comment from you ideas! Thank you. Can it be coloring?(Sorry if I do not speak English well(╥﹏╥))math.stackexchange.com/questions/140754/what-is-kink/… –  Software May 10 '13 at 18:05
    
$+1^{\infty}...$ –  B. S. Jun 9 '13 at 6:53
add comment

You are correct.

What you are stating is that the properties are $independent$, in that you can find examples in which both are true or one is true and the other false.

A lot of work has been done on independence.

share|improve this answer
    
I was just wondering whether you are aware that you can use markdown for various things, such as italics or bold; you do not need MathJax for this. I think that *independent* independent looks better than $independent$ $independent$ or $\text{independent}$ $\text{independent}$ –  Martin Sleziak Jan 15 at 13:59
add comment

By transitivity you have $1<1$ but also $1=1$, so it is a contradiction to the first condition.

share|improve this answer
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.