We begin with a fundamental definition.
Let be a non-empty set. A relation on is a statement concerning pairs of elements of , which may be true for some pairs and false for others.
If , we could take the relation ‘‘’’ on .
If , we could take the relation ‘‘’’ on .
If , we could take the relation ‘‘’’ on .
If , we could take the relation ‘‘ has one more prime factor than ’’ on .
If , we could take the relation ‘‘’’ on .
If is the set of first-year MATH modules taught here, we could take the relation ‘‘ is lectured earlier in the year than ’’ on .
If is the set of all people in the world, we could take the relation ‘‘ is related (in the usual sense of the word) to ’’ on .
In general, we write ‘‘’’ to mean ‘‘ is related to ’’ (that is, the relation holds for the pair ), and we write ‘‘’’ to mean ‘‘ is not related to ’’ (i.e., the relation does not hold for the pair ). For instance, in Example 6.1.2(iii) above, we have the following:
There are certain properties that a relation may or may not possess. We shall define each in turn; for convenience we take three examples of relations on the set , and for each we decide whether or not it has the property, giving either a (short) proof that it does or exhibiting a case which shows that it does not (a counterexample). The three examples we take are the following:
if ;
if ;
if .
A relation on a non-empty set is reflexive if for each ; in symbols
is true for some (e.g., ), but not for all ; indeed, it is false for because . Hence the relation is not reflexive.
is true for all because , so the relation is reflexive.
is true for all because divides , so the relation is reflexive.
This property actually requires the relation to hold between certain pairs of elements of (those where the two elements are the same). The other properties are a little different; they require that if certain pairs of elements are related, then something must follow.
A relation on a non-empty set is symmetric if, whenever satisfy , we have ; in symbols
If , then certainly ; so the relation is symmetric.
If it need not be the case that ; indeed, we have because , but , so , and thus the relation is not symmetric.
If , then Lemma 5.1.7 implies that ; so the relation is symmetric.
The third property concerns trios of elements.
A relation on a non-empty set is transitive if, whenever satisfy and , we have ; in symbols
We now take two further examples and examine them for all our three properties together.
Define the relation on by if . Then:
For each we have , so . Thus the relation is reflexive.
If then , so and . Thus the relation is symmetric.
If , and , then so , so , but so . Thus the relation is not transitive.
Define the relation on by if . Then:
For all we have , so — thus the relation is reflexive.
If , we cannot deduce that , as the example and shows. Thus the relation is not symmetric.
If and , then we know that . Thus the relation is transitive.
We summarize our findings so far and consider further examples in the following table.
In the next section we shall consider a special type of relation which is defined in terms of these properties.