Question
Determine if the following relations are equivalence relations, anti-symmetric relations, asymmetric relations, or neither. Provide an explanation for each claim. 1. \( R=\subseteq \) 2. \( R=\subsetn
rykgdftyjcbh8394
rykgdftyjcbh8394
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
Answered by
GPT 3.5
1. \( R=\subseteq \) is an anti-symmetric relation.
Explanation: For a relation to be anti-symmetric, if any two elements x and y are related and x ≠ y, then it cannot be the case that y is also related to x. In the case of \( R=\subseteq \), if x is a subset of y and x ≠ y, then it is not possible for y to be a subset of x. This is because if y were a subset of x, then x and y would be equal sets, contradicting the assumption that x ≠ y. Therefore, \( R=\subseteq \) satisfies the anti-symmetric property.
2. \( R=\subsetneq \) is neither an equivalence relation, anti-symmetric relation, nor an asymmetric relation.
Explanation:
- \( R=\subsetneq \) is not an equivalence relation because it does not satisfy all three properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. For example, the relation includes pairs like (A, A) where A is a set, which violates symmetry as the relation implies A is a proper subset of itself. Additionally, the relation does not satisfy transitivity since if A is a proper subset of B and B is a proper subset of C, it does not necessarily mean that A is a proper subset of C.
- \( R=\subsetneq \) is also not an anti-symmetric relation because it allows for cases where two distinct sets are both proper subsets of each other. For example, if A = {1, 2} and B = {2, 3}, both A is a proper subset of B and B is a proper subset of A. Therefore, the relation fails the anti-symmetric property.
- \( R=\subsetneq \) is not an asymmetric relation because it allows for cases where if A is a proper subset of B, then B is not a proper subset of A. For example, if A = {1} and B = {1, 2}, A is a proper subset of B but B is not a proper subset of A. Therefore, the relation fails the asymmetric property.
Explanation: For a relation to be anti-symmetric, if any two elements x and y are related and x ≠ y, then it cannot be the case that y is also related to x. In the case of \( R=\subseteq \), if x is a subset of y and x ≠ y, then it is not possible for y to be a subset of x. This is because if y were a subset of x, then x and y would be equal sets, contradicting the assumption that x ≠ y. Therefore, \( R=\subseteq \) satisfies the anti-symmetric property.
2. \( R=\subsetneq \) is neither an equivalence relation, anti-symmetric relation, nor an asymmetric relation.
Explanation:
- \( R=\subsetneq \) is not an equivalence relation because it does not satisfy all three properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. For example, the relation includes pairs like (A, A) where A is a set, which violates symmetry as the relation implies A is a proper subset of itself. Additionally, the relation does not satisfy transitivity since if A is a proper subset of B and B is a proper subset of C, it does not necessarily mean that A is a proper subset of C.
- \( R=\subsetneq \) is also not an anti-symmetric relation because it allows for cases where two distinct sets are both proper subsets of each other. For example, if A = {1, 2} and B = {2, 3}, both A is a proper subset of B and B is a proper subset of A. Therefore, the relation fails the anti-symmetric property.
- \( R=\subsetneq \) is not an asymmetric relation because it allows for cases where if A is a proper subset of B, then B is not a proper subset of A. For example, if A = {1} and B = {1, 2}, A is a proper subset of B but B is not a proper subset of A. Therefore, the relation fails the asymmetric property.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.