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.


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.


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)


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!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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 $1 = A_0\triangleleft A_1\triangleleft \cdots \triangleleft A_n = G$. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 14 '13 at 11:34

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.