RELATIONS - DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ธ.ค. 2014
- Looking for paid tutoring or online courses with practice exercises, text lectures, solutions, and exam practice? TrevTutor.com has you covered!
We introduce relations. How to write them, what they are, and properties of relations including reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity.
#DiscreteMath #Mathematics #Relations
Support me on Patreon: bit.ly/2EUdAl3
Visit our website: bit.ly/1zBPlvm
Subscribe on TH-cam: bit.ly/1vWiRxW
-Playlists-
Discrete Mathematics 1: • Discrete Math (Sets, L...
Discrete Mathematics 2: • Discrete Math (Countin...
-Recommended Textbooks-
Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics (Grimaldi): amzn.to/2T0iC53
Discrete Mathematics (Johnsonbaugh): amzn.to/2Hh7H41
Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications (Rosen): amzn.to/3lUgrMI
Book of Proof (Hammack): amzn.to/35eEbVg
Like us on Facebook: on. 1vWwDRc
Hello, welcome to TheTrevTutor. I'm here to help you learn your college courses in an easy, efficient manner. If you like what you see, feel free to subscribe and follow me for updates. If you have any questions, leave them below. I try to answer as many questions as possible. If something isn't quite clear or needs more explanation, I can easily make additional videos to satisfy your need for knowledge and understanding.
![[Discrete Mathematics] Relations Examples](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qujnPIPjKrA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Discrete Mathematics] Relations Examples](/img/tr.png)
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 4 Day 3 // GEN vs TS | PRX vs ZETA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nspkjQuZve0/mqdefault.jpg)
x-y != 0
This situation is not transitive. xRy and yRz imply xRz. Consider the case 3R4, 4R3, therefore 3R3. We know 3R3 is 0, so the relationship isn't transitive!
well if you're given those specific values and are asked if their relationship is transitive you could say yes, but when given only x and y, their relationship must be transitive for ALL values of the given domain, or else its NOT transitive, even if 99.9% of the possible cases are.
thanks dude...
but if we say this relation for DISTINCT x, y and z, then it is transitive right?
Shouldn't it be that z != x to be more understandable in this scenario?
'cause I'm confused af why is it not transitive.
So x , y, z are not distinct?
Thank you. You are literally the only person who can explain this in simple English it seems. My professor seems to get joy from talking in the most confusing, and ambiguous terms possible
It's not always their fault, usually they have limited time and try to provide you with the most accurate statements possible. Though I agree, it's much easier to graps a broader concept after learning the intuition and basic intetion of it on simple examples, i wouldn't be here otherwise :P
Try having a teacher who not only does that, but also has a thick Chinese accent.
@@foxxul My teacher only posts links to TH-cam videos...and not Trev or Patrick... I may as well have the lady that designs suits from the Incredibles explaining relations backwards in Dutch while gargling peanut butter. Thank goodness for Google.
@@AZAZA19981907 The problem begins where the college teachers go after completing the syllabus instead of actually teaching. The bigger the difference between the score of best performing student and the worst performing student, the worse the teacher is at his/her job
Me 2 lol
"and if you don't get confused... I really hope you don't" haha thank you
he explained really well 😏
i wish more teachers were like you. You make stuff way more intuitive and easy to understand.
I got an A+ on my test.. you're awesome...keep it up 💪👍
Sana all
@@preciouslauranoriega4831 ito hinahanap ko eh HAHAHAHAHAHA
@@nichol071 HAHHAHAHAHA FILIPINNOOOOOOOO
@@nichol071 HAHAHA troo
@@preciouslauranoriega4831 pede paturo?? Naguguluhan paren po tlga ako..
I was so stuck on transitive and your less than sign example just exploded a eureka, thanks a million.
This is such a better explanation than my professor. Everyone in class struggled with the homework on this topic. This helped a bit
i just started computer science at uni this year and i got recommended your amazing videos! They are so helpful, even if my main language isnt english i still managed to understand you easily and mathematics have their own universel language which helps even more. Thank you again
I'm in Com Sci too!
@@dianna5619 same
@@dianna5619 same
Hey, I just wanna let you know that this video helped me so damn much. Thank you very much, you have no idea how good it felt when I finally had that eureka moment after many weeks having no idea what my professor was talking about. Keep doing what you're doing bro.
You are an excelent Prof., thank you very much, it was very clever to introduce the logic tables on the symmetric relationship.
11:42 "they want you to play with yourself" oh math, when did you become so enticing?
Glad I found your channel before finals! Wish I found it in August, will recommend! Great stuff, thank you!
How's your exams go?
Your explanation is so easy to understand. Hope our Professors could teach as good as you.
The diagrams for reflexive symmetric and transitive help SO much.
Thank you for the tutorial...seems like you are the only one who can help me understand what my lec teaches me☺☺
Excellent video! Thank you!
You my man, are fantastic, please never stop haha
Awesome vid as usual. Thank you for all your help.
wow , I spend so many hours understanding this but you are awesome !!!
I love your course, the explanation is powerful..
u save me while I'm studying last minute for my midterm tmr 🤦🏻♀️ thank you so much
Thank you for putting these tutorials together for all of us that struggle with Math. Very appreciated
A correction: every function may also be represented as a relation (i.e., as a subset of a Cartesian product), but not every relation is a function. Just think of a simple relation like a total order on a set and you will see that a given argument in a relation may be related to many other arguments and does not have to be related to an exclusive output as a function does.
0:53 smoothest "L" I've ever seen
your handwriting is so satisfying >.>
true
That was brilliant! Thank you so much!
Extremely helpful. Thank you.
Am really grateful 🙏 your explanation was superb , it really helped me , thanks sooo much , looking forward to more of your videos 😊
Great work! Cheers from Spain and Perú
This is a very good explanation for basic introduction, for one that doesn't learn them at othe sources.
Great video! Helped me cram for my final
So clear thank you. I don't know why my professor is turned on by using such big words. Your explanation was clear and easy to understand.
it is criminal that a 15 min yt video explains this shit way better than 2 hours of lectures at a uni im paying to go to
That's nice, You are helping me so much right now.
Thanks for the video! Better than my university prof.
hi dear.
the inflection in your voice at 13:20 so excited about math lol.
you and people like organic chem tutor are god sends
Sir this helped a lot thanks a lot❤️
I'm from Indonesia, and I appreciate this one... Love your explanation
Aku telat nih 😁
Your channel helps me a lot thank you very much 😍😊
Thanks 👍,I really understood the relations concept
Thank you for the awesome explanatory videos! I have been preparing for my final exams by watching your videos. I hope I will pass the lesson.
amazing now i finally understand thanks!!!
you r super hero ,, u saved me thanks
play with your self......:) more teachers should be like this
+Astra Adams Students who want to play with themselves are encouraged to sit in the back of the room with other students that want to play with themselves, that way they can play with each other instead ;)
I thought I was the only one that caught that xD
TheTrevTutor Dawg wtf I was tryna understand discrete math but here you are making sex jokes. Smh math nerds wildin' these days
TheTrevTutor omfg lol
Oh wow! You are a star, keep doing this.
i like that you use different collor for each section. it makes things much easier to swallow
the first video that is very good on this topic 👍
hi i love your videos and requesting if you can make a video on relational
closures
thanks! it helps a lot :)
thank you so much really help alot
Thank you for the Video
was struggling so harddd thankk youuuuuuu
In which video can I learn more about equivalence class and relations?
This guy is a fu*king genius. He explained everything so simply.
Can u pls tell the software u used here. I found it great
Thank you, Very usefull
I think the answer for the exercise question is false. If X-y ≠ 0, and y-z≠ 0, it’s doesn’t necessarily mean x-z≠0… For example, when X= 2, y = 1, and z = 2, 2-1≠0 (true), and 1-2≠0(true); however, 2-2≠0(false). Therefore, it isn’t transitive.
thank you!
9 years and it's still very comprehensive
Thanks fir the help
you are great!
Nice video!
What about Anti- Symmetric and irreflexive relationships?
About to take a discrete structures test, wish me luck!
Set of all integers where (x,y) is in R. xy>1 is it ref , symm , trans or anti? Could you help me understand more of this? I answered symmetric for this one and I got it correct. e.g (4 2) (2 4) > 1 but what about say (1,0) (0,1)? Also, why can't it be reflexive? like (2,2) but we can't have (1,1) (0,0).
Thank you
god my college discrete math course was so bad that straight up skipping the lecture and only studying the slides and videos like you got me better grades
I would like to know what app are you using for writing things Trev!
thanks a lot
When determining reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity at 11:31. Could we analyze x - y != 0 as x != y instead? Just seems like it may be a simpler approach. Do you see anything wrong w/ that approach?
I noticed you actually worked out x != y at the end of the video. My question is: is there anything wrong with manipulating the variables around the operator? I'm assuming this should not change reflexivity, transitivity or symmetry. (i.e. x - y + z = 0 is the same as figuring out the relations of x = y - z, etc.)
There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's easier to understand x != y rather than x-y != 0 for this kind of question, so the fact that you were able to change that and work with it better is a good thing.
Ily still thanks for the help :)
What about Irreflexive and antisymetric?
Oskar Midbøe A relation R on a set X is antisymmetric if and only if x R y and y R x implies x = y.
A relation is irreflexive if and only if every point x is not related to itself. An example of this is inequality since it’s illogical for an element say x to be not equal itself.
@@XXgamemaster
i appreciate that replay, thank you
"Cool it with the anti-symmetric remarks!"
I'm kinda struggling with this question I have... It's about Hash functions... SHA64 to be specific...
It goes like this:
We have a set of S which is a random long String combination (Cardinality is infinity therefore) and another set of Hex64, which consists of the Hexadecimals {0,1, 2...., 9, A, B, C, D, E, F) and this function takes any String input and generates a 64 digit long hexadecimal number from that string... However, because there are infinite input possibilities, however limited output possibilities (16^64 to be specific) there are bound to be "collisions" and that is when you enter 2 different strings but get the same output... and now my question is this... The following relationship is defined so:
s1 and s2 are elements of S and are related as such:
s1~s2 : Hex64(s1) Hex64(s2)
So it's basically saying that 2 different strings are related, when they cause a collision and it's saying that this is an equivalence relation, and I have to show:
a) How this is reflexive
b) how this is symmetric
c) how this is transitive
Now I understand it in principle, but I'm not sure how to do it mathematically....
In the example x-y=!0, I assume you don't include negative numbers? Because then the relation would not be symmetric right?for example pick x to be -y?
At 15:05 for proofing it is not transitive you took x and z same. don't you think it's wrong to take same value ? All x,y,z must be of different values? If you still says we can take same values for x and z then in that case, for symmetric property we also can take x and y same and which will say (let) 2=2 and hence it do not hold symmetric property as well.
Appreciate you response on my query. Thanks. You are doing awesome job :)
not all relations are functions as implicitly stated in your video. Apart from that great video, thanks.
hello
identity relation is what he explained in the place of reflexive!
reflexive relation's are those in which elements are related to themselves, also they can be related to any other element!
peace out.
love your vdo
11:44 Play with myself? Set Theory doesn't get me quite that excited...
Great videos tho man. Thanks.
Hey, i just wanna know at the end of the video for transitivity, why do we choose x=2, y=1, z=2. What if we choosed x=2, y=1 and z=3, wouldnt that make it transitve?
The last example doesn't work when (xRy, yRz -> xRz) and x=z. For instance, 1-2 doesn't equal 0, 2-1 doesn't equal 0, but 1-1 equals zero.
Helpful
I have a question concerning the last equation what if you changed z to 3, wont the equation be transitive
So for a set like this {5,10,15,20 ......}, could you say that it follows a relexive relation? Because each element is related to itself?
sufficient explanation
You saved my grade ;'D
Wouldn't it be a type error rather than a syntax error? If function expects input int int and receives float int?
What? This guy is a mind reader and a math god ?!?!?!
Thank you for your explanations of these kind of intuitive abstract stuff. I heard you saying relations are functions but isn't it vice verse?
Actually not all rel are functions
@@IStMl Exactly, but the professor said at the beginning of the video that relations are functions
How do you identify the relation R? Our prof said the condition or formula is x+y divided by 2 and the answer must be an integer. But I am just quite confused bc he gave us a problem to answer but the domain(x) is a vowel and the range(y) is a number.
But the formula said that the answer must be an integer to say that xRy. But the set contains vowel and a number, for example (a,2). So my question is can (a,2) be aR2? Hope you can answer my question even after 5 years. Thanks in advance😊
A question:
Let A = Z the set of integers and let R be define by R b if and only if . is R an equivalence relation?
So, was x-y =/=0 transitive? I can't seem to find a counterexample, nor your solution in the description or the comments.
Not transitive.
If it were, then 1-2 != 0 and 2-1 != 0 implies that 1-1 != 0.
given fantastic proof
is there a relation that is reflexive and symmetric but not transitive
0:40 Not all relations are functions....
Yea! All functions are relations, but not all relations are functions. How could he say this? OMEGALUL
Yes
for set like R={(2,3),(3,2), (5,4)}
can i say it it symmetric becuz it contains 2,3 3,2...but what i confused is it doesn contain (4,5)..but hv (5,4) ..so it is symetric?
We also have something called antisymmetric is it supposed to not be symmetric?
in the last example where you said it's not transitive but (x not=y and y not = z implies x not =z SO T and T should imply T) so it should be transitive shouldn't it ?
you made a comment on symmetry: "if the first part is false, then the whole thing is true". Does this logic also apply to the antisymmetric property?