6:32 It's Asymmetric, not "Antisymmetric", because a is taller than b, and b is taller than a, is impossible. When you say it's Antisymmetric this means that's possible when a = b, but as we saw in Reflexivity it's not.
R is indeed anti-symmetric. In addition to being anti-symmetric, the relation is also asymmetric because it lacks any reflexive pair. All asymmetric relations are anti-symmetric but the vice-versa is not true.
Saying "You can check this on your own" instead of actually explaining things is not a good idea. It leaves so many students in doubt. Please explain why 1 and 2 were transitive
there is nothing to violate in the condition, every elements on set R is (a,a) while transitive notation includes 3 variable which is {(a,b) ^ (b,c)} > (a,c).
6:32 it is antisymmetric, antisymmetry states that if a is in symmetry with b then aRa and bRb must hold for all symmetric cases for antisymmetry to hold. There are no cases of symmetry so you can skip the step of checking the above to prove antisymmetry.
if (a,b) and (b,c) then (a,c) transtivity says so if you dont have any ab and bc pairs to compare in your relation then it will be transitive since F -> ... ~~True
if (a,b) and (b,c) then (a,c) transtivity says so if you dont have any ab and bc pairs to compare in your relation then it will be transitive since F -> ... ~~True
It would be more helpful, for you to explain why each relation is transitive instead of saying "you can check this on your own". Like if I could check this on my own, I wouldn't be here in the first place..
The definition of transitivity states that a relation is transitive for ALL elements x y z, meaning that every single element has to be transitive for the relation to be transitive.
i dont agree with the second exercises the second exemple , because when you define an order relation and you compare the elements a,b you must either define the relation on a set of height measurement or people , because the equal height measurement will be considered the same element , ooor i missed something in the class because this concept seems unambigious in the exemple and more complex if you can explain
please could you complete the data structures playlist and also make videos on engineering mathematics. Please this is an urgent request. I'm preparing for GATE and really need good videos for the above mentioned subject.
6:32 It's Asymmetric, not "Antisymmetric", because a is taller than b, and b is taller than a, is impossible. When you say it's Antisymmetric this means that's possible when a = b, but as we saw in Reflexivity it's not.
No need to go in that condition...since a abd b are not at all related....a=b is checked only if a is related to b and b is related to a
R is indeed anti-symmetric. In addition to being anti-symmetric, the relation is also asymmetric because it lacks any reflexive pair. All asymmetric relations are anti-symmetric but the vice-versa is not true.
problem1 b is transitive bcoz for (2,2) & (2,3).......(2,3) in itself is present..same for (2,3) & (3,3)
What about a why is it transitive
Saying "You can check this on your own" instead of actually explaining things is not a good idea. It leaves so many students in doubt. Please explain why 1 and 2 were transitive
Why is it trivial that in the first set R1 is transitive?
there is nothing to violate in the condition, every elements on set R is (a,a) while transitive notation includes 3 variable which is {(a,b) ^ (b,c)} > (a,c).
Sir your videos are incredible..please upload vudeos on data structure
yes sir please do that ASAP
its uploaded already check the play ;lists
@@moinuddinshaikh6080 datastructures is still incomplete. He is asking to complete that subject
Problem 2
If a is taller than b
Then it is possible that a>b
So why it is antisymmetric
And why problem 3 is not a antisymmetric
6:32 it is antisymmetric, antisymmetry states that if a is in symmetry with b then aRa and bRb must hold for all symmetric cases for antisymmetry to hold.
There are no cases of symmetry so you can skip the step of checking the above to prove antisymmetry.
Thanks ❤
You teach it very easy manner.
in 1:56 why is a) transitive?
Iam asking the same question😂
+me
if (a,b) and (b,c) then (a,c) transtivity says so if you dont have any ab and bc pairs
to compare in your relation then it will be transitive since F -> ... ~~True
Typooooo
@@samreetsengupta3541and why R2 is transitive and why R3 is not?? Please reply if you know
❤thanks
thanks a lot sir 🙏🏼 😊 ☺ ❤ 🙂 🙏🏼 😊 ☺ ❤ 🙂 🙏🏼 😊 ☺ ❤ 🙂
4:32 its transitive bcoz we have (2,3) (3,0) and (2,0)
at 1:45 relation not transitive
yeah i thought that as well
if (a,b) and (b,c) then (a,c) transtivity says so if you dont have any ab and bc pairs
to compare in your relation then it will be transitive since F -> ... ~~True
Typoooo
@@enes5345 thanks
please complete this subject ASAP
Student: Why is this relation transitive?
He: It's quite obvious🗣 (skips to the next question)
It would be more helpful, for you to explain why each relation is transitive instead of saying "you can check this on your own".
Like if I could check this on my own, I wouldn't be here in the first place..
i thought R3 going to be transitive because there is {0,1}, {1,2}, {0,2} so doesn't that makes it transitive?
Gyan mt do pls request hai
The definition of transitivity states that a relation is transitive for ALL elements x y z, meaning that every single element has to be transitive for the relation to be transitive.
@@shivicakeabe saale to solution btade ???
@@gamb61according to this logic R2 must also be not transitive because there is no (0,2) for (2,0) and no (3,2) for (2,3).
Tq u sir
R1 is transitive?🤔
same doubt
i dont agree with the second exercises the second exemple , because when you define an order relation and you compare the elements a,b you must either define the relation on a set of height measurement or people , because the equal height measurement will be considered the same element , ooor i missed something in the class because this concept seems unambigious in the exemple and more complex if you can explain
If (a,b)€R ^ (b,a)€R -----> (a=b)
(b,a)€R is false
Then this whole compound proposition becomes true.
b part was not transitive (2,0) and (2,3) were there but no (0,3)
yeah same doubt
check once again a,b b,c should be present than a,c
2:41 for (2,0) and (2 , 3) there is no (0,3) in relation then how is it transitive???
plz explain
definition for transitive is that for all (a,b) belonging to R and (b,d) belonging to R, (a,d) must also belong to R.
@@cdm6541 aee vedya (0,3) hai hi nahi (b) me... bat ka grip gayab h kya tere
sir plzz complete other topics fast sp.Graph Theory
R3 is transitive because if I am not taller than you, and you are not taller than my dad, then I am certainly not taller than my dad. Right ?
thanks this helped
6:32 NO
Not antisymmetric
i toguth so to cus a isnt equals b
Sir can you upload remaining videos of data structures
please could you complete the data structures playlist and also make videos on engineering mathematics. Please this is an urgent request. I'm preparing for GATE and really need good videos for the above mentioned subject.
I think you are lacking some knowledge about transitive relation ... you are doing it the wrong way plz checkk 2:41
I also think that R2 is not transitive and if R2 is transitive then according to that logic R3 must also be transitive. Can you please clear my doubt?
@@ovishasanyal755 same question did u got the answer?
because for (2,0) and (2 , 3) there is no (0,3) then how its transitive
Sir it seems like R4 is transitive . There is (1,2) (2,3) and (1,3)
for every (a,b) (b,c) ->(a,c) shold be there (1,2) (2,0) but (1,0) is not there
Sorry, but the explanation for (a) is not helpful at all. I found for such an important topic that this was rushed without adequate explanation
I have sent you a message regarding to your TH-cam channel. I hope it will add value for your channel. Anyway I am looking forward to kind response.
My first comment.