Expressing friend group in set theory language and its equivalence relation
$begingroup$
(A) Let X be the set of people in a social network, and for each x ∈ friends(x) denote the set of friends of x. For each W ⊆ X define
friends(W) = ∪w∈Wfriends(w)
For example if friends(Lea) = {Per} and friends(Kai) = {Lea,Ron}, friends({Lea,Kai}) = {Per,Lea,Ron}. Express the following in the language of set theory.
Does it seem like what I'm doing is correct? Also I'm not sure about the last two.
(i) Some of John's friends are also Kat's friends
friends(John) ∩ friends(Kat) ≠ ∅
(ii) Per is a mutual friend of Lea and Kai
Per ∈ friends(Lea) ∩ friends(Kai)
(iii) Ron is friends with everybody
Ron ∈ ∩w∈Wfriends(w)
(iv) Per's friends who are not friends with Kat are friends with Rob
friends(Per) - friends(Kat) ∈ friends(Rob)
(v) Kat is a friend of a friend of Lea.
(vi) Kat is friends with all of her friends' friends
(B) Let X be as before and friends be as in part (a). Define a relation on X by {x,y) | y ∈ friends(x)}. What properties must the function friends satisfy in order for this relation to be:
(i) reflexive
∀x ∈ friends(x). x~x
(ii) symmetric
∀x,y ∈ friends(x). if x~y then y~x
(iii)transitive
∀x,y,z ∈ friends(x). if x~y and y~z then x~z
I'm not sure if this is along the lines of what they are looking for.
elementary-set-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(A) Let X be the set of people in a social network, and for each x ∈ friends(x) denote the set of friends of x. For each W ⊆ X define
friends(W) = ∪w∈Wfriends(w)
For example if friends(Lea) = {Per} and friends(Kai) = {Lea,Ron}, friends({Lea,Kai}) = {Per,Lea,Ron}. Express the following in the language of set theory.
Does it seem like what I'm doing is correct? Also I'm not sure about the last two.
(i) Some of John's friends are also Kat's friends
friends(John) ∩ friends(Kat) ≠ ∅
(ii) Per is a mutual friend of Lea and Kai
Per ∈ friends(Lea) ∩ friends(Kai)
(iii) Ron is friends with everybody
Ron ∈ ∩w∈Wfriends(w)
(iv) Per's friends who are not friends with Kat are friends with Rob
friends(Per) - friends(Kat) ∈ friends(Rob)
(v) Kat is a friend of a friend of Lea.
(vi) Kat is friends with all of her friends' friends
(B) Let X be as before and friends be as in part (a). Define a relation on X by {x,y) | y ∈ friends(x)}. What properties must the function friends satisfy in order for this relation to be:
(i) reflexive
∀x ∈ friends(x). x~x
(ii) symmetric
∀x,y ∈ friends(x). if x~y then y~x
(iii)transitive
∀x,y,z ∈ friends(x). if x~y and y~z then x~z
I'm not sure if this is along the lines of what they are looking for.
elementary-set-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(A) Let X be the set of people in a social network, and for each x ∈ friends(x) denote the set of friends of x. For each W ⊆ X define
friends(W) = ∪w∈Wfriends(w)
For example if friends(Lea) = {Per} and friends(Kai) = {Lea,Ron}, friends({Lea,Kai}) = {Per,Lea,Ron}. Express the following in the language of set theory.
Does it seem like what I'm doing is correct? Also I'm not sure about the last two.
(i) Some of John's friends are also Kat's friends
friends(John) ∩ friends(Kat) ≠ ∅
(ii) Per is a mutual friend of Lea and Kai
Per ∈ friends(Lea) ∩ friends(Kai)
(iii) Ron is friends with everybody
Ron ∈ ∩w∈Wfriends(w)
(iv) Per's friends who are not friends with Kat are friends with Rob
friends(Per) - friends(Kat) ∈ friends(Rob)
(v) Kat is a friend of a friend of Lea.
(vi) Kat is friends with all of her friends' friends
(B) Let X be as before and friends be as in part (a). Define a relation on X by {x,y) | y ∈ friends(x)}. What properties must the function friends satisfy in order for this relation to be:
(i) reflexive
∀x ∈ friends(x). x~x
(ii) symmetric
∀x,y ∈ friends(x). if x~y then y~x
(iii)transitive
∀x,y,z ∈ friends(x). if x~y and y~z then x~z
I'm not sure if this is along the lines of what they are looking for.
elementary-set-theory
$endgroup$
(A) Let X be the set of people in a social network, and for each x ∈ friends(x) denote the set of friends of x. For each W ⊆ X define
friends(W) = ∪w∈Wfriends(w)
For example if friends(Lea) = {Per} and friends(Kai) = {Lea,Ron}, friends({Lea,Kai}) = {Per,Lea,Ron}. Express the following in the language of set theory.
Does it seem like what I'm doing is correct? Also I'm not sure about the last two.
(i) Some of John's friends are also Kat's friends
friends(John) ∩ friends(Kat) ≠ ∅
(ii) Per is a mutual friend of Lea and Kai
Per ∈ friends(Lea) ∩ friends(Kai)
(iii) Ron is friends with everybody
Ron ∈ ∩w∈Wfriends(w)
(iv) Per's friends who are not friends with Kat are friends with Rob
friends(Per) - friends(Kat) ∈ friends(Rob)
(v) Kat is a friend of a friend of Lea.
(vi) Kat is friends with all of her friends' friends
(B) Let X be as before and friends be as in part (a). Define a relation on X by {x,y) | y ∈ friends(x)}. What properties must the function friends satisfy in order for this relation to be:
(i) reflexive
∀x ∈ friends(x). x~x
(ii) symmetric
∀x,y ∈ friends(x). if x~y then y~x
(iii)transitive
∀x,y,z ∈ friends(x). if x~y and y~z then x~z
I'm not sure if this is along the lines of what they are looking for.
elementary-set-theory
elementary-set-theory
asked Jan 7 at 13:17
Jamie WhitakerJamie Whitaker
62
62
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Most of what you do is correct, here are some adjustments:
(iii) Ron is a friend of everybody thus $forall x in X: Ron in friends(x)$ or equivalent
$$Ron in bigcap_{xin X} friends(x) $$
(iv) Here you should use the subset symbol $"subseteq"$ instead of $"in"$.
(v)
$Kat in friends(friends(Lea))$
(vi) This one is tricky and in the formulation it is actually unclear which way the friendsships go. The friends of Kat's friends is the set friends(friends(Kat)).
If Kat is a friend of all of her friends' friends then
$$ forall x in friends(friends(Kat)): Kat in friends(x) $$
thus
$$ Kat in bigcap_{xin friends(friends(Kat))} friends(x) $$
The other interpretation is that that every friend of a friend of Kat is also a friend of Kat, which can be expressed as
$$ friends(friends(Kat)) subseteq friends(Kat) $$
In part B.
Your relation is defined by $R={(x,y) | yin friends(x)} $, in other words $xsim y$ iff y is a friend of x.
Thus for R to be reflexive we must have
$$forall xin X : (x,x) in R $$
Note that $(x,x)in R$ if and only if $x in friends(x)$, in other words, everyone must be friends with themselves.
For symmetry. We note that $(x,y)in R$ iff $yin friends(x)$ and that $(y,x)in R$ iff $xin friends(y)$. Thus symmetry can be formulated as:
$$ forall x,y in X: (y in friends(x) Leftrightarrow x in friends(y)) $$
In other words friendship goes both ways.
For R to be transtive we must have
$$ xsim y : and : ysim z Rightarrow xsim z $$
, which is equivalent to saying
$$ yin friends(x) : and : zin friends(y) Rightarrow zin friends(x) $$
In other words if Alice and Bob are friends and Bob and Casper are friends, then Alice and Casper must be friends. (if the relation is transitive)
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064992%2fexpressing-friend-group-in-set-theory-language-and-its-equivalence-relation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Most of what you do is correct, here are some adjustments:
(iii) Ron is a friend of everybody thus $forall x in X: Ron in friends(x)$ or equivalent
$$Ron in bigcap_{xin X} friends(x) $$
(iv) Here you should use the subset symbol $"subseteq"$ instead of $"in"$.
(v)
$Kat in friends(friends(Lea))$
(vi) This one is tricky and in the formulation it is actually unclear which way the friendsships go. The friends of Kat's friends is the set friends(friends(Kat)).
If Kat is a friend of all of her friends' friends then
$$ forall x in friends(friends(Kat)): Kat in friends(x) $$
thus
$$ Kat in bigcap_{xin friends(friends(Kat))} friends(x) $$
The other interpretation is that that every friend of a friend of Kat is also a friend of Kat, which can be expressed as
$$ friends(friends(Kat)) subseteq friends(Kat) $$
In part B.
Your relation is defined by $R={(x,y) | yin friends(x)} $, in other words $xsim y$ iff y is a friend of x.
Thus for R to be reflexive we must have
$$forall xin X : (x,x) in R $$
Note that $(x,x)in R$ if and only if $x in friends(x)$, in other words, everyone must be friends with themselves.
For symmetry. We note that $(x,y)in R$ iff $yin friends(x)$ and that $(y,x)in R$ iff $xin friends(y)$. Thus symmetry can be formulated as:
$$ forall x,y in X: (y in friends(x) Leftrightarrow x in friends(y)) $$
In other words friendship goes both ways.
For R to be transtive we must have
$$ xsim y : and : ysim z Rightarrow xsim z $$
, which is equivalent to saying
$$ yin friends(x) : and : zin friends(y) Rightarrow zin friends(x) $$
In other words if Alice and Bob are friends and Bob and Casper are friends, then Alice and Casper must be friends. (if the relation is transitive)
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Most of what you do is correct, here are some adjustments:
(iii) Ron is a friend of everybody thus $forall x in X: Ron in friends(x)$ or equivalent
$$Ron in bigcap_{xin X} friends(x) $$
(iv) Here you should use the subset symbol $"subseteq"$ instead of $"in"$.
(v)
$Kat in friends(friends(Lea))$
(vi) This one is tricky and in the formulation it is actually unclear which way the friendsships go. The friends of Kat's friends is the set friends(friends(Kat)).
If Kat is a friend of all of her friends' friends then
$$ forall x in friends(friends(Kat)): Kat in friends(x) $$
thus
$$ Kat in bigcap_{xin friends(friends(Kat))} friends(x) $$
The other interpretation is that that every friend of a friend of Kat is also a friend of Kat, which can be expressed as
$$ friends(friends(Kat)) subseteq friends(Kat) $$
In part B.
Your relation is defined by $R={(x,y) | yin friends(x)} $, in other words $xsim y$ iff y is a friend of x.
Thus for R to be reflexive we must have
$$forall xin X : (x,x) in R $$
Note that $(x,x)in R$ if and only if $x in friends(x)$, in other words, everyone must be friends with themselves.
For symmetry. We note that $(x,y)in R$ iff $yin friends(x)$ and that $(y,x)in R$ iff $xin friends(y)$. Thus symmetry can be formulated as:
$$ forall x,y in X: (y in friends(x) Leftrightarrow x in friends(y)) $$
In other words friendship goes both ways.
For R to be transtive we must have
$$ xsim y : and : ysim z Rightarrow xsim z $$
, which is equivalent to saying
$$ yin friends(x) : and : zin friends(y) Rightarrow zin friends(x) $$
In other words if Alice and Bob are friends and Bob and Casper are friends, then Alice and Casper must be friends. (if the relation is transitive)
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Most of what you do is correct, here are some adjustments:
(iii) Ron is a friend of everybody thus $forall x in X: Ron in friends(x)$ or equivalent
$$Ron in bigcap_{xin X} friends(x) $$
(iv) Here you should use the subset symbol $"subseteq"$ instead of $"in"$.
(v)
$Kat in friends(friends(Lea))$
(vi) This one is tricky and in the formulation it is actually unclear which way the friendsships go. The friends of Kat's friends is the set friends(friends(Kat)).
If Kat is a friend of all of her friends' friends then
$$ forall x in friends(friends(Kat)): Kat in friends(x) $$
thus
$$ Kat in bigcap_{xin friends(friends(Kat))} friends(x) $$
The other interpretation is that that every friend of a friend of Kat is also a friend of Kat, which can be expressed as
$$ friends(friends(Kat)) subseteq friends(Kat) $$
In part B.
Your relation is defined by $R={(x,y) | yin friends(x)} $, in other words $xsim y$ iff y is a friend of x.
Thus for R to be reflexive we must have
$$forall xin X : (x,x) in R $$
Note that $(x,x)in R$ if and only if $x in friends(x)$, in other words, everyone must be friends with themselves.
For symmetry. We note that $(x,y)in R$ iff $yin friends(x)$ and that $(y,x)in R$ iff $xin friends(y)$. Thus symmetry can be formulated as:
$$ forall x,y in X: (y in friends(x) Leftrightarrow x in friends(y)) $$
In other words friendship goes both ways.
For R to be transtive we must have
$$ xsim y : and : ysim z Rightarrow xsim z $$
, which is equivalent to saying
$$ yin friends(x) : and : zin friends(y) Rightarrow zin friends(x) $$
In other words if Alice and Bob are friends and Bob and Casper are friends, then Alice and Casper must be friends. (if the relation is transitive)
New contributor
$endgroup$
Most of what you do is correct, here are some adjustments:
(iii) Ron is a friend of everybody thus $forall x in X: Ron in friends(x)$ or equivalent
$$Ron in bigcap_{xin X} friends(x) $$
(iv) Here you should use the subset symbol $"subseteq"$ instead of $"in"$.
(v)
$Kat in friends(friends(Lea))$
(vi) This one is tricky and in the formulation it is actually unclear which way the friendsships go. The friends of Kat's friends is the set friends(friends(Kat)).
If Kat is a friend of all of her friends' friends then
$$ forall x in friends(friends(Kat)): Kat in friends(x) $$
thus
$$ Kat in bigcap_{xin friends(friends(Kat))} friends(x) $$
The other interpretation is that that every friend of a friend of Kat is also a friend of Kat, which can be expressed as
$$ friends(friends(Kat)) subseteq friends(Kat) $$
In part B.
Your relation is defined by $R={(x,y) | yin friends(x)} $, in other words $xsim y$ iff y is a friend of x.
Thus for R to be reflexive we must have
$$forall xin X : (x,x) in R $$
Note that $(x,x)in R$ if and only if $x in friends(x)$, in other words, everyone must be friends with themselves.
For symmetry. We note that $(x,y)in R$ iff $yin friends(x)$ and that $(y,x)in R$ iff $xin friends(y)$. Thus symmetry can be formulated as:
$$ forall x,y in X: (y in friends(x) Leftrightarrow x in friends(y)) $$
In other words friendship goes both ways.
For R to be transtive we must have
$$ xsim y : and : ysim z Rightarrow xsim z $$
, which is equivalent to saying
$$ yin friends(x) : and : zin friends(y) Rightarrow zin friends(x) $$
In other words if Alice and Bob are friends and Bob and Casper are friends, then Alice and Casper must be friends. (if the relation is transitive)
New contributor
edited Jan 7 at 15:26
New contributor
answered Jan 7 at 15:05
Leander Tilsted KristensenLeander Tilsted Kristensen
113
113
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064992%2fexpressing-friend-group-in-set-theory-language-and-its-equivalence-relation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown