What is a relation $R$ called for which $forall x,y,z: neg (x R y wedge y R z)$?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For a project, I am working with relations $R$ with the property:
$negexists x,y,z: x R y wedge y R z$
Does this property have a name? If so, what is it?
relations
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For a project, I am working with relations $R$ with the property:
$negexists x,y,z: x R y wedge y R z$
Does this property have a name? If so, what is it?
relations
2
These sorts of relations can be described as a bipartite graph in which all edges are directed from the same half of the graph to the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph
â Connor Harris
Aug 27 at 14:55
1
Alternatively (and still in graph theory land), your relation is a (directed) matching.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 14:56
(Directed) matching is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you.
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:07
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For a project, I am working with relations $R$ with the property:
$negexists x,y,z: x R y wedge y R z$
Does this property have a name? If so, what is it?
relations
For a project, I am working with relations $R$ with the property:
$negexists x,y,z: x R y wedge y R z$
Does this property have a name? If so, what is it?
relations
asked Aug 27 at 14:49
reinierpost
20119
20119
2
These sorts of relations can be described as a bipartite graph in which all edges are directed from the same half of the graph to the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph
â Connor Harris
Aug 27 at 14:55
1
Alternatively (and still in graph theory land), your relation is a (directed) matching.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 14:56
(Directed) matching is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you.
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:07
add a comment |Â
2
These sorts of relations can be described as a bipartite graph in which all edges are directed from the same half of the graph to the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph
â Connor Harris
Aug 27 at 14:55
1
Alternatively (and still in graph theory land), your relation is a (directed) matching.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 14:56
(Directed) matching is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you.
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:07
2
2
These sorts of relations can be described as a bipartite graph in which all edges are directed from the same half of the graph to the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph
â Connor Harris
Aug 27 at 14:55
These sorts of relations can be described as a bipartite graph in which all edges are directed from the same half of the graph to the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph
â Connor Harris
Aug 27 at 14:55
1
1
Alternatively (and still in graph theory land), your relation is a (directed) matching.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 14:56
Alternatively (and still in graph theory land), your relation is a (directed) matching.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 14:56
(Directed) matching is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you.
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:07
(Directed) matching is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you.
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:07
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
For posets this property is called having height $2$.
The height of a poset is the maximum cardinality of a totally-ordered subset.
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
For posets this property is called having height $2$.
The height of a poset is the maximum cardinality of a totally-ordered subset.
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
For posets this property is called having height $2$.
The height of a poset is the maximum cardinality of a totally-ordered subset.
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
For posets this property is called having height $2$.
The height of a poset is the maximum cardinality of a totally-ordered subset.
For posets this property is called having height $2$.
The height of a poset is the maximum cardinality of a totally-ordered subset.
edited Aug 27 at 15:14
answered Aug 27 at 14:56
Daron
4,87811024
4,87811024
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
add a comment |Â
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
I like this answer. If you just think of $R$ as $<$ rather than $leq$ (as there is no $x$ with $xRx$), then it does seem like a partial order.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 15:03
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Shouldn't it be: having height at most 2?
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:09
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
Yep! Corrected.
â Daron
Aug 27 at 15:14
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2896261%2fwhat-is-a-relation-r-called-for-which-forall-x-y-z-neg-x-r-y-wedge-y-r-z%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
These sorts of relations can be described as a bipartite graph in which all edges are directed from the same half of the graph to the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartite_graph
â Connor Harris
Aug 27 at 14:55
1
Alternatively (and still in graph theory land), your relation is a (directed) matching.
â Arthur
Aug 27 at 14:56
(Directed) matching is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you.
â reinierpost
Aug 27 at 15:07