is the relation antisymmetric?
the answer is no since (2,4) and (4,2) are in R. But I do not understand how.
Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
A relation has the antisymmetric property when,
\[(a,b) \in R \Rightarrow (b,a) \notin R, \forall a,b \in A, a \neq b\]
There is another definition, but I think this one is easier to understand.
Another thing to remember is that, you can only have (a,b) and (b,a) in the relation if a=b.
Really? You think that way is easier to understand?
How about just:
A relation R on a set E is "anti-symmetric" if
\[\forall x,y \in E(aRb \wedge bRa \Rightarrow a=b)\]
That's the other definition that I was talking about, and it's equivalent to what I wrote: ', you can only have (a,b) and (b,a) in the relation if a=b.'
Both are correct of course, and that one is the more commonly used, but I finally understand the difference between symmetric, antisymmetric and asymmetric after I wrote the property the way I did in my previous message.
Of course that, if you are able to understand one, you should understand the other one.
Bottom line, everyone understand math in a different way, it's cool to have more than one way to refer to the same property :D
Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.
Yeah, I totally agree. In fact, it's probably more useful to think of the property your way when thinking about a relation as a set of 2-tuples (as the question was presented). Personally, I think the other way is more helpful when visualizing an ordering like so:
Anyway, great to hear your feedback!