3
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have three sets $A,B$, $R$, and $R \subseteq A \times B$. $R$ is a relation. According to the book I'm currently studying, inverse of the relation is defined as follows:

$R^{-1} = \{(b,a) \in B \times A \mid (a,b) \in R\}$

Why do you need to specify $B \times A$ part?

If I'm getting this correctly: if condition $(a,b) \in R$ holds, then $(b,a) \in B \times A$ will hold regardless.

In an attempt to be more rigorous, I decided to proof this conjecture.

Suppose $(a,b) \in R$. Then $(a,b) \in A \times B$, which means $a \in A$ and $b \in B$. And since $A,B$ are non-empty, then $B \times A$ is non-empty and $(b,a) \in B \times A$.

Hence $(a,b) \in R \implies (b,a) \in B \times A$. $\Box$

So provided my proof is correct, I think it would be more concise (and equally accurate) if the definition went like this:

$$R^{-1} = \{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\}$$

So repeating my question, is it necessary to mention $(b,a) \in B \times A$ when defining inverse?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Yes, you are right: given $R \subseteq A \times B$, $\{(b,a) \in B \times A \mid (a,b) \in R\}$ and $\{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\}$ denote the same set $R^{-1}$, i.e. $\{(b,a) \in B \times A \mid (a,b) \in R\} = \{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\}$. To prove that you have to show:

  • $\{(b,a) \in B \times A \mid (a,b) \in R\} \subseteq \{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\}$, which is trivial.
  • $\{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\} \subseteq \{(b,a) \in B \times A \mid (a,b) \in R\}$, which is almost trivial, and your proof is essentially correct. Note that in your argument, the fact that $A$ and $B$ are not empty and hence $B \times A$ is not empty are irrelevant. The argument works even in the case where $A$ and $B$ (and hence $R$ and $R^{-1}$) are empty.
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

What do you want to prove here?

For any pair of sets $A,B$ one can define the cartesian products $A\times B$ and $B\times A$.

If $R$ is a relation with $R\subseteq A\times B$, the by definition $R^{-1}$ is a relation with $R^{-1}\subseteq B\times A$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I will put it differently: are these two definitions the same? $R^{-1} = \{(b,a) \in B \times A \mid (a,b) \in R\}$ and $R^{-1} = \{(b,a) \mid (a,b) \in R\}$ $\endgroup$ – Nelver Oct 8 '19 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, they are the same. But the first one is preferable. $\endgroup$ – Wuestenfux Oct 8 '19 at 8:06
  • $\begingroup$ Why is the first one preferable? $\endgroup$ – Nelver Oct 8 '19 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ Its more informative. $\endgroup$ – Wuestenfux Oct 8 '19 at 8:12

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.