I've been asked to explain why "a binary relation, $R$, that is irreflexive and transitive will be anti-symmetric." I started to think about the question by coming up with some relations that I understood to be both irreflexive and transitive. One of those was $R = \{(x,y), (y,z), (z,x), (x,z), (z,y), (y,x)\}$.

This relation confuses me. If reflexivity is defined as $\forall x \in A(xRx)$ and there are no elements of the form $(x,x)$ contained within $R$, then it seems that $R$ is irreflexive. Transitivity is defined as $\forall x,y,z \in A (xRy \land yRz \to xRz)$. $R$ also appears to be transitive. How then can I show that all binary relations which are irreflexive and transitive are anti-symmetric, when the definition of symmetry ($\forall x,y \in A (xRy \to yRx)$) seems to hold for $R$?

Is it correct for me to believe that $R$ is irreflexive, transitive and also symmetric?

  • $\begingroup$ Your $R $ isn't transitive since you have $(x,y) $ and $(y,x) $ but not $(x,x) $. $\endgroup$ – Mark S. Nov 20 '16 at 2:51
  • $\begingroup$ Oh! ... That makes sense. $\endgroup$ – paleto-fuera-de-madrid Nov 20 '16 at 2:52

$R$ is not transitive, although it may appear so at first glance if drawn as a triangle with edges between vertices. As Mark S. pointed out in the comments, $(x,y) \in R$ and $(y,x) \in R$, but $(x,x) \notin R$. The relation would have to be reflexive to allow for this.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.