Prove that every antisymmetric relation is weakly antisymmetric antisymmetric: if, for all \(x,y \in X\), if \(xRy\) holds, then \(yRx\) does not weakly antisymmetric: if, for all \(x,y \in X\), if \(xRy\) and \(yRx\) hold, then \(x=y\)
I don't think anyone currently online can help you ; I recommend that you try Math Stack Exchange
thanks lol
@karatechopper can you help?
Proving the contrapositive of this statement might be a little easier to see.
i have a proof from my teacher but i don't understand it. "Since xRy and yRx never happens, it is weakly antisymmetric"
that's the only thing she wrote
While that is correct, I feel like that is "hand waving" a bit.
If you look at contrapositive of what you are trying to prove, it makes a little more sense.
ok how do i do that?
You are trying to prove, "If the relation R is antisymmetric, then it is weakly antisymmetric." This is a " P implies Q" type statement. The contrapostive is where you negate each part of the statement, and switch the order. So what I am suggesting to prove is this: "If the relation R is NOT weakly antisymmetric, then it is NOT symmetric".
er...antisymmetric*. that last word should be antisymmetric.
ok, so if R is not weakly antisymmetric, then xRy and yRx hold would imply x\(\neq\)y?
That is correct. Since R is not weakly antisymmetric, there exists an x,y in X such that xRy and yRx hold, but x doenst equal y. Now, it is possible for this relation to be antisymmetric?
no, because xRy AND yRx hold, so this means it's not antisymmetric either.
and thats it! You have shown that if R is not weakly antisymmetric, then R is not antisymmetric. Since this is the contrapostive of what we actually wanted to prove, and the contrapositive of a statement is equivalent to the original statement, we are done. You have proved that if a relation is antisymmetric, then it is weakly antisymmetric.
ok thanks i understand it now!
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!