Give an example of a relation which is transitive but neither reflexive nor symmetric.

Vedclass pdf generator app on play store
Vedclass iOS app on app store
(N/A) Consider a relation $R$ on the set of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ defined as:
$R = \{(a, b) : a < b \}$
$1$. Reflexivity: For any $a \in \mathbb{R}$,$(a, a) \notin R$ because $a$ cannot be strictly less than $a$. Thus,$R$ is not reflexive.
$2$. Symmetry: Consider $(1, 2) \in R$ since $1 < 2$. However,$2 \not< 1$,so $(2, 1) \notin R$. Thus,$R$ is not symmetric.
$3$. Transitivity: Let $(a, b) \in R$ and $(b, c) \in R$. This implies $a < b$ and $b < c$. By the transitive property of inequality,$a < c$. Therefore,$(a, c) \in R$. Thus,$R$ is transitive.
Conclusion: The relation $R = \{(a, b) : a < b \}$ is transitive but neither reflexive nor symmetric.

Explore More

Similar Questions

Let $R = \{( P , Q ) \mid P \text{ and } Q \text{ are at the same distance from the origin} \}$ be a relation. Then the equivalence class of $(1, -1)$ is the set:

The relation $R = \{(x, y) : x, y \in \mathbb{Z} \text{ and } x + y \text{ is even} \}$ is :

Let $R = \{(3, 3), (5, 5), (9, 9), (12, 12), (5, 12), (3, 9), (3, 12), (3, 5)\}$ be a relation on the set $A = \{3, 5, 9, 12\}.$ Then,$R$ is

Let $R$ be a relation from $Q$ to $Q$ defined by $R = \{(a, b) : a, b \in Q \text{ and } a - b \in Z \}$. Show that $(a, b) \in R$ and $(b, c) \in R$ implies that $(a, c) \in R$.

Let $R$ be an equivalence relation on a finite set $A$ having $n$ elements. Then the number of ordered pairs in $R$ is

Vedclass Products

For Students

Vedclass Test Series

Mock tests in real JEE/NEET style with performance analysis. 5-day free trial.

Start Free Trial
For Teachers

Exam Paper Generator

Generate Set A/B/C/D exam papers from 7.5L+ questions in 2 minutes. 3 chapters free.

Try Free
For Institutes

Online Exam Module

Live online exams with unlimited students, 360° analytics & white-label branding.

See Demo