Consider the relation R = {(a,b) | a/b = Q} over the R+. Is R reflexive,...

 

Transcribed Image Text:

Consider the relation R = {(a,b) | a/b = Q} over the R+. Is R reflexive, anti-reflexive, symmetric, anti-symmetric, or transitive? Is it an equivalence relation, a partial order or a strict partial order? No justification is required. (b) [6 Pts] Give an inductive definition for a1 of the sequence 6,1,21,21,41, 81,.... where ao is the first term. (c) [6 Pts] Prove by contradiction, that if a relation is anti-reflexive and transitive, then it is anti- symmetric. Consider the relation R = {(a,b) | a/b = Q} over the R+. Is R reflexive, anti-reflexive, symmetric, anti-symmetric, or transitive? Is it an equivalence relation, a partial order or a strict partial order? No justification is required. (b) [6 Pts] Give an inductive definition for a1 of the sequence 6,1,21,21,41, 81,.... where ao is the first term. (c) [6 Pts] Prove by contradiction, that if a relation is anti-reflexive and transitive, then it is anti- symmetric. Consider the relation R = {(a,b) | a/b = Q} over the R+. Is R reflexive, anti-reflexive, symmetric, anti-symmetric, or transitive? Is it an equivalence relation, a partial order or a strict partial order? No justification is required. (b) [6 Pts] Give an inductive definition for a1 of the sequence 6,1,21,21,41, 81,.... where ao is the first term. (c) [6 Pts] Prove by contradiction, that if a relation is anti-reflexive and transitive, then it is anti- symmetric. Consider the relation R = {(a,b) | a/b = Q} over the R+. Is R reflexive, anti-reflexive, symmetric, anti-symmetric, or transitive? Is it an equivalence relation, a partial order or a strict partial order? No justification is required. (b) [6 Pts] Give an inductive definition for a1 of the sequence 6,1,21,21,41, 81,.... where ao is the first term. (c) [6 Pts] Prove by contradiction, that if a relation is anti-reflexive and transitive, then it is anti- symmetric.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Part a Properties of Relation R Heres the analysis of relation R ab ab Q over R without justificatio... View the full answer