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.

Can someone please help?

I am trying to answer the following:

Consider the relation $T$ on $\mathbb{Z}$ given by $$xTy \Longleftrightarrow x + 1 \le y;$$ Is $xTy$ asymmetric?

$xTy \Rightarrow x\neg Ty$

$xTy \Leftrightarrow x+1 \le y$

$x\neg Ty \Leftrightarrow y+1>y $

We assume that $x \lt y$ is true, then $y+1 \gt x$ will always be true.

Then $xTy$ is asymmetric.

Is this a good enough or even valid proof?

Thanks

share|improve this question
    
Can you explain what $\,_xNOT_y$ means? –  Srivatsan Sep 21 '11 at 17:54
    
@SrivatsanNarayanan I think he means not related –  Ragnar123 Sep 21 '11 at 17:55
2  
You can use $\not T$ or $\lnot T$ if that is what you want. Right click and choose Show Source to see what I wrote. –  Ross Millikan Sep 21 '11 at 17:58
    
Yes, it means Not related, but I did not figure out how to make a not T. - I have updated it now, so it is $¬T$ –  Sylvester78 Sep 21 '11 at 17:58
1  
What kind of objects are $x$ and $y$? This is a relation among what? Integers? Real numbers? $x+1\leq y$ is equivalent to $x\lt y$ for integers, but not for rational or real numbers. $x+1\not\leq y$ is equivalent to $y+1\leq x$ for integers, but not for rational or real numbers. You need to specify not just the "rule" for the relation, but what it is a relation on. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 21 '11 at 18:21
show 7 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

A relation $T$ is asymmetrical if and only if whenever $xTy$ holds, $yTx$ does not hold. That is, if and only if: $$xTy\Longrightarrow y(\neg T) x.$$

So what you write makes no sense in terms of proving this. You write that you want to prove that if $xTy$ holds, then $x(\neg T)y$ is true; but this is not what you need to prove.

Also, your definition is that $xTy$ holds if and only if $x+1\leq y$; then you claim that $x(\neg T)y$ is equivalent to $y+1\leq x$; while that may be (see below) a true deduction, it's better to write what the condition means directly: if $xTy$ is equivalent to $x+1\leq y$, then $x(\neg T)y$ is equivalent to $\neg(x+1\leq y)$, which is equivalent to $x+1\not\leq y$.

Now, you don't specify what kind of numbers you are dealing with. For real numbers, $x+1\not\leq y$ is equivalent to $x+1\gt y$; but this is not the same as $y+1\leq x$ if you are dealing with real numbers, or with rational numbers. It's true for integers, but since you don't specify which kinds of $x$s you are dealing with, it could also be incorrect.

I think there are too many errors and unstated assumptions to make what you write a correct proof.

So, is this relation asymmetrical? For real numbers:

We want to prove that if $xTy$, then $y(\neg T)x$. So, assume that $xTy$. That means that $x+1\leq y$. We need to show that $y(\neg T)x$, meaning we need to show that $y+1\not\leq x$.

Indeed, we know that $x\lt x+1\leq y$; therefore, $x\lt y\lt y+1$. By transitivity, if $y+1\leq x$, then we would have $x\lt x$, which is impossible. Therefore, $y+1\not\leq x$. Therefore, $y(\neg T)x$.

Since the relation is asymmetrical for real numbers, it is also asymmetrical for rationals, integers, or natural numbers.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much for your help :-) –  Sylvester78 Sep 21 '11 at 18:37
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.