Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Transitive relation
View on Wikipedia
In mathematics, a binary relation R on a set X is transitive if, for all elements a, b, c in X, whenever R relates a to b and b to c, then R also relates a to c.
Key Information
Every partial order and every equivalence relation is transitive. For example, less than and equality among real numbers are both transitive: If a < b and b < c then a < c; and if x = y and y = z then x = z.
Definition
[edit]| Transitive binary relations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
in general (it might, or might not, hold). For example, that every equivalence relation is symmetric, but not necessarily antisymmetric, is indicated by All definitions tacitly require the homogeneous relation be transitive: for all if and then |
A homogeneous relation R on the set X is a transitive relation if,[1]
- for all a, b, c ∈ X, if a R b and b R c, then a R c.
Or in terms of first-order logic:
- ,
where a R b is the infix notation for (a, b) ∈ R.
Examples
[edit]As a non-mathematical example, the relation "is an ancestor of" is transitive. For example, if Amy is an ancestor of Becky, and Becky is an ancestor of Carrie, then Amy is also an ancestor of Carrie.
On the other hand, "is the birth mother of" is not a transitive relation, because if Alice is the birth mother of Brenda, and Brenda is the birth mother of Claire, then it does not follow that Alice is the birth mother of Claire. In fact, this relation is antitransitive: Alice can never be the birth mother of Claire.
Non-transitive, non-antitransitive relations include sports fixtures (playoff schedules), 'knows' and 'talks to'.
The examples "is greater than", "is at least as great as", and "is equal to" (equality) are transitive relations on various sets. As are the set of real numbers or the set of natural numbers:
- whenever x > y and y > z, then also x > z
- whenever x ≥ y and y ≥ z, then also x ≥ z
- whenever x = y and y = z, then also x = z.
More examples of transitive relations:
- "is a subset of" (set inclusion, a relation on sets)
- "divides" (divisibility, a relation on natural numbers)
- "implies" (implication, symbolized by "⇒", a relation on propositions)
Examples of non-transitive relations:
- "is the successor of" (a relation on natural numbers)
- "is a member of the set" (symbolized as "∈")[2]
- "is perpendicular to" (a relation on lines in Euclidean geometry)
The empty relation on any set is transitive[3] because there are no elements such that and , and hence the transitivity condition is vacuously true. A relation R containing only one ordered pair is also transitive: if the ordered pair is of the form for some the only such elements are , and indeed in this case , while if the ordered pair is not of the form then there are no such elements and hence is vacuously transitive.
Vacuous transitivity is transitivity when in a relation there are no ordered pairs of the form (a,b) and (b,c).
Properties
[edit]Closure properties
[edit]- The converse (inverse) of a transitive relation is always transitive. For instance, knowing that "is a subset of" is transitive and "is a superset of" is its converse, one can conclude that the latter is transitive as well.
- The intersection of two transitive relations is always transitive.[4] For instance, knowing that "was born before" and "has the same first name as" are transitive, one can conclude that "was born before and also has the same first name as" is also transitive.
- The union of two transitive relations need not be transitive. For instance, "was born before or has the same first name as" is not a transitive relation, since e.g. Herbert Hoover is related to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is in turn related to Franklin Pierce, while Hoover is not related to Franklin Pierce.
- The complement of a transitive relation need not be transitive.[5] For instance, while "equal to" is transitive, "not equal to" is only transitive on sets with at most one element.
Other properties
[edit]A transitive relation is asymmetric if and only if it is irreflexive.[6]
A transitive relation need not be reflexive. When it is, it is called a preorder. For example, on set X = {1,2,3}:
- R = { (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,3), (3,2) } is reflexive, but not transitive, as the pair (1,2) is absent,
- R = { (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,3) } is reflexive as well as transitive, so it is a preorder,
- R = { (1,1), (2,2), (3,3) } is reflexive as well as transitive, another preorder,
- R = { (1,2), (2,3), (1,3) } is transitive, but not reflexive.
As a counter example, the relation on the real numbers is transitive, but not reflexive.
Transitive extensions and transitive closure
[edit]Let R be a binary relation on set X. The transitive extension of R, denoted R1, is the smallest binary relation on X such that R1 contains R, and if (a, b) ∈ R and (b, c) ∈ R then (a, c) ∈ R1.[7] For example, suppose X is a set of towns, some of which are connected by roads. Let R be the relation on towns where (A, B) ∈ R if there is a road directly linking town A and town B. This relation need not be transitive. The transitive extension of this relation can be defined by (A, C) ∈ R1 if you can travel between towns A and C by using at most two roads.
If a relation is transitive then its transitive extension is itself, that is, if R is a transitive relation then R1 = R.
The transitive extension of R1 would be denoted by R2, and continuing in this way, in general, the transitive extension of Ri would be Ri + 1. The transitive closure of R, denoted by R* or R∞ is the set union of R, R1, R2, ... .[8]
The transitive closure of a relation is a transitive relation.[8]
The relation "is the birth parent of" on a set of people is not a transitive relation. However, in biology the need often arises to consider birth parenthood over an arbitrary number of generations: the relation "is a birth ancestor of" is a transitive relation and it is the transitive closure of the relation "is the birth parent of".
For the example of towns and roads above, (A, C) ∈ R* provided you can travel between towns A and C using any number of roads.
Relation types that require transitivity
[edit]- Preorder – a reflexive and transitive relation
- Partial order – an antisymmetric preorder
- Total preorder – a connected (formerly called total) preorder
- Equivalence relation – a symmetric preorder
- Strict weak ordering – a strict partial order in which incomparability is an equivalence relation
- Total ordering – a connected (total), antisymmetric, and transitive relation
Counting transitive relations
[edit]No general formula that counts the number of transitive relations on a finite set (sequence A006905 in the OEIS) is known.[9] However, there is a formula for finding the number of relations that are simultaneously reflexive, symmetric, and transitive – in other words, equivalence relations – (sequence A000110 in the OEIS), those that are symmetric and transitive, those that are symmetric, transitive, and antisymmetric, and those that are total, transitive, and antisymmetric. Pfeiffer[10] has made some progress in this direction, expressing relations with combinations of these properties in terms of each other, but still calculating any one is difficult. See also Brinkmann and McKay (2005)[11] and Mala (2022).[12]
Since the reflexivization of any transitive relation is a preorder, the number of transitive relations an on n-element set is at most 2n time more than the number of preorders, thus it is asymptotically by results of Kleitman and Rothschild.[13]
| Elements | Any | Transitive | Reflexive | Symmetric | Preorder | Partial order | Total preorder | Total order | Equivalence relation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 16 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 512 | 171 | 64 | 64 | 29 | 19 | 13 | 6 | 5 |
| 4 | 65,536 | 3,994 | 4,096 | 1,024 | 355 | 219 | 75 | 24 | 15 |
| n | 2n2 | 2n(n−1) | 2n(n+1)/2 | ∑n k=0 k!S(n, k) |
n! | ∑n k=0 S(n, k) | |||
| OEIS | A002416 | A006905 | A053763 | A006125 | A000798 | A001035 | A000670 | A000142 | A000110 |
Note that S(n, k) refers to Stirling numbers of the second kind.
Related properties
[edit]
A relation R is called intransitive if it is not transitive, that is, if xRy and yRz, but not xRz, for some x, y, z. In contrast, a relation R is called antitransitive if xRy and yRz always implies that xRz does not hold. For example, the relation defined by xRy if xy is an even number is intransitive,[14] but not antitransitive.[15] The relation defined by xRy if x is even and y is odd is both transitive and antitransitive.[16] The relation defined by xRy if x is the successor number of y is both intransitive[17] and antitransitive.[18] Unexpected examples of intransitivity arise in situations such as political questions or group preferences.[19]
Generalized to stochastic versions (stochastic transitivity), the study of transitivity finds applications of in decision theory, psychometrics and utility models.[20]
A quasitransitive relation is another generalization;[5] it is required to be transitive only on its non-symmetric part. Such relations are used in social choice theory or microeconomics.[21]
Proposition: If R is a univalent, then R;RT is transitive.
- proof: Suppose Then there are a and b such that Since R is univalent, yRb and aRTy imply a=b. Therefore xRaRTz, hence xR;RTz and R;RT is transitive.
Corollary: If R is univalent, then R;RT is an equivalence relation on the domain of R.
- proof: R;RT is symmetric and reflexive on its domain. With univalence of R, the transitive requirement for equivalence is fulfilled.
See also
[edit]- Transitive reduction
- Intransitive dice
- Rational choice theory
- Hypothetical syllogism — transitivity of the material conditional
Notes
[edit]- ^ Smith, Eggen & St. Andre 2006, p. 145
- ^ However, the class of von Neumann ordinals is constructed in a way such that ∈ is transitive when restricted to that class.
- ^ Smith, Eggen & St. Andre 2006, p. 146
- ^ Bianchi, Mariagrazia; Mauri, Anna Gillio Berta; Herzog, Marcel; Verardi, Libero (2000-01-12), "On finite solvable groups in which normality is a transitive relation", Journal of Group Theory, 3 (2), doi:10.1515/jgth.2000.012, ISSN 1433-5883, archived from the original on 2023-02-04, retrieved 2022-12-29
- ^ a b Robinson, Derek J. S. (January 1964), "Groups in which normality is a transitive relation", Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 60 (1): 21–38, Bibcode:1964PCPS...60...21R, doi:10.1017/S0305004100037403, ISSN 0305-0041, S2CID 119707269, archived from the original on 2023-02-04, retrieved 2022-12-29
- ^ Flaška, V.; Ježek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007), Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF), Prague: School of Mathematics - Physics Charles University, p. 1, archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-11-02 Lemma 1.1 (iv). Note that this source refers to asymmetric relations as "strictly antisymmetric".
- ^ Liu 1985, p. 111
- ^ a b Liu 1985, p. 112
- ^ Finch, Steven R. (2003), Transitive relations, topologies and partial orders (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04
- ^ Pfeiffer, Götz (2004), "Counting transitive relations", Journal of Integer Sequences, 7 (3) 04.3.2: 1–11, MR 2085342
- ^ Brinkmann, Gunnar; McKay, Brendan D. (2005), "Counting unlabelled topologies and transitive relations", Journal of Integer Sequences, 8 (2) 05.2.1: 1–7, MR 2134160
- ^ Mala, Firdous Ahmad (2022), "On the number of transitive relations on a set", Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 53 (1): 228–232, doi:10.1007/s13226-021-00100-0, MR 4387391
- ^ Kleitman, D.; Rothschild, B. (1970), "The number of finite topologies", Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 25 (2): 276–282, doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-1970-0253944-9, JSTOR 2037205
- ^ since e.g. 3R4 and 4R5, but not 3R5
- ^ since e.g. 2R3 and 3R4 and 2R4
- ^ since xRy and yRz can never happen
- ^ since e.g. 3R2 and 2R1, but not 3R1
- ^ since, more generally, xRy and yRz implies x=y+1=z+2≠z+1, i.e. not xRz, for all x, y, z
- ^ Drum, Kevin (November 2018), "Preferences are not transitive", Mother Jones, archived from the original on 2018-11-29, retrieved 2018-11-29
- ^ Oliveira, I.F.D.; Zehavi, S.; Davidov, O. (August 2018), "Stochastic transitivity: Axioms and models", Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 85: 25–35, doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2018.06.002, ISSN 0022-2496
- ^ Sen, A. (1969), "Quasi-transitivity, rational choice and collective decisions", Rev. Econ. Stud., 36 (3): 381–393, doi:10.2307/2296434, JSTOR 2296434, Zbl 0181.47302
References
[edit]- Liu, C.L. (1985), Elements of Discrete Mathematics, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-038133-X
- Smith, Douglas; Eggen, Maurice; St. Andre, Richard (2006), A Transition to Advanced Mathematics (6th ed.), Brooks/Cole, ISBN 978-0-534-39900-9
Further reading
[edit]- Grimaldi, Ralph P. (1994), Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics (3rd ed.), Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-19912-2
- Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
External links
[edit]- "Transitivity", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]
- Transitivity in Action at cut-the-knot
Transitive relation
View on GrokipediaFundamentals
Definition
A binary relation is a fundamental concept in set theory and mathematics, defined as a subset of the Cartesian product of two sets. Specifically, for sets and , a binary relation from to is any subset of , where . When , the relation is homogeneous, meaning it relates elements within the same set ; in contrast, heterogeneous relations connect elements from distinct sets and . The property of transitivity applies primarily to homogeneous binary relations on a set. A binary relation on a set is transitive if, for all , whenever and , it follows that . This condition ensures that the relation "chains" consistently across elements. An equivalent characterization of transitivity uses relation composition, defined as for relations and on . A relation on is transitive if and only if .[3] For heterogeneous relations, transitivity extends analogously, requiring that if and with in the appropriate intersection of domains and codomains, then .Examples
In everyday contexts, the relation "is an ancestor of" on the set of people is transitive: if person A is an ancestor of person B, and B is an ancestor of person C, then A must be an ancestor of C, as ancestry chains through generations without interruption.[4] In contrast, the relation "is a parent of" on the same set is not transitive; for instance, if Alice is a parent of Bob, and Bob is a parent of Charlie, Alice is typically a grandparent of Charlie rather than a direct parent.[5] A classic mathematical example of a transitive relation is the "less than or equal to" relation on the set of real numbers: if and , then , reflecting the natural ordering of the number line.[6] Similarly, the subset relation on the power set of a given set (the collection of all its subsets) is transitive: if set and , then every element in is also in , so .[7] To visualize transitivity, consider a directed graph with vertices , , and , where edges represent the relation: an edge from to and from to implies the relation holds between and , adding a direct edge from to to satisfy transitivity.A ──→ B ──→ C
↘
──→ C
A ──→ B ──→ C
↘
──→ C
Properties
Closure Properties
Transitivity is preserved under arbitrary intersections of relations. That is, if is a family of transitive relations on a set , then their intersection is transitive.[9] To see this, suppose and . Then for every , and . Since each is transitive, for all , so . This establishes the transitivity of the intersection using the definition directly.[10] In contrast, transitivity is not preserved under unions. For a counterexample, consider the set . Let and . Both and are transitive, as neither contains a pair of consecutive elements requiring a third. However, is not transitive, since and , but .[4] Regarding composition, if and are transitive relations on a set satisfying , then is transitive.[11] Note that without this condition, the composition of transitive relations need not be transitive; for instance, on , let and , both transitive, but (where if there exists with and ), which contains and but not .[12] The reflexive-transitive closure of a relation on a set is the smallest relation on that contains and is both reflexive and transitive. It can be constructed as the transitive closure of the reflexive closure of , or equivalently as where is the identity relation and higher powers are compositions. This closure plays a key role in generating minimal structures extending with these properties, distinct from the pure transitive closure detailed later.[13]Algebraic Properties
A transitive relation on a set becomes a preorder when it is also reflexive, meaning that for every , holds, alongside the transitivity condition that if and , then . Preorders generalize partial orders by relaxing antisymmetry, allowing distinct elements and to satisfy both and without requiring . This structure partitions into equivalence classes where elements are mutually related, with a partial order defined on the quotient set of these classes.[14][15] In the context of orders, a transitive relation interpreted as a strict partial order (irreflexive and transitive) is dense if, for any with , there exists such that and . This density property ensures no "gaps" between comparable elements, mirroring the structure of the rational numbers under the usual order. Countable dense linear orders without endpoints are unique up to isomorphism, embedding any countable linear order. Such relations facilitate universal embedding properties in order theory, where any countable partial order can be extended to a dense linear extension.[16][17] If a transitive relation is also symmetric—meaning implies —then forms a partial equivalence relation, which decomposes as a disjoint union of equivalence relations on the subsets where reflexivity holds (the support of ). Specifically, the connected components in the underlying undirected graph of are complete cliques, each inducing a full equivalence relation on its vertices, while elements outside these components relate trivially. Without symmetry, transitivity alone does not yield such a decomposition into equivalences, highlighting the role of symmetry in algebraic structure.[15][10] Viewing a transitive relation as a directed graph , where edges represent , transitivity implies that any path of length 2 (from to to ) requires a direct edge from to , effectively closing the graph under composition of adjacent edges. In functional graphs, where each vertex has out-degree at most 1 (modeling functions or mappings), this property forces chains to collapse: if , then must hold, but the out-degree constraint implies that non-constant functions cannot be transitive unless they are constant on cycles or fixed points, limiting such relations to simple structures like identity or constant maps.[18] To see the component structure, consider the directed graph of a transitive relation ; its strongly connected components (where mutual reachability holds) form equivalence classes under the symmetric part of , and the condensation graph—contracting each component to a single vertex—yields a strict partial order on these components, as transitivity preserves paths between them without cycles. Formally, let be the relation ; then is an equivalence relation on the support of , and induces a transitive relation on the quotient that is antisymmetric. This decomposition shows as a disjoint union of these equivalence components ordered transitively, with proof following from transitivity ensuring closure under paths within and between components.[15][14]Extensions and Constructions
Transitive Extensions
A transitive extension of a binary relation on a set is a transitive binary relation on such that . Such extensions allow non-transitive relations to be enlarged while preserving the original connections and ensuring the transitivity property holds for the resulting relation.[19] For any binary relation on a finite or infinite set , transitive extensions exist; the transitive closure of provides the smallest such extension, which coincides with the minimal transitive extension (see the section on Transitive Closure for details). This guarantees that every relation can be embedded into a transitive structure without losing its original pairs. Larger extensions are also possible, up to the full relation , which is trivially transitive.[19] When is a partial order (reflexive, antisymmetric, and transitive), maximal transitive extensions correspond to linear extensions of the poset, which are total orders containing . These are maximal in the sense that no further pairs can be added while maintaining transitivity and totality. The existence of such extensions is ensured by Szpilrajn's extension theorem, which states that every partial order on can be extended to a total order on .[20] An algorithmic approach to constructing a transitive extension begins with the initial relation and iteratively incorporates all pairs for which there exists some such that and are in the current relation, repeating until no additional pairs can be added. This process generates the transitive closure as the minimal transitive extension.[19]Transitive Closure
The transitive closure of a binary relation on a set , denoted , is defined as the smallest transitive relation on such that . This means contains all pairs from and is transitive, while no proper subset of that still contains and remains transitive exists.[21] One standard construction of the transitive closure is given by the infinite union of powers of the relation: where and for , with denoting relational composition. This union captures all finite chains of elements connected through , ensuring transitivity by including pairs whenever there exists a sequence for some .[19][22] For finite sets with , the construction simplifies since longer chains cannot introduce new pairs beyond length ; thus, This finite union suffices because any chain longer than must repeat elements by the pigeonhole principle, and transitivity already accounts for such repetitions through shorter subchains.[22] In graph theory, where a binary relation corresponds to the edge set of a directed graph with vertices, the transitive closure can be computed using Warshall's algorithm. This dynamic programming approach initializes a boolean matrix with the adjacency matrix of the graph and iteratively updates it by considering each vertex as an intermediate node, ultimately yielding the reachability matrix in time.[22] The transitive closure always exists for any binary relation on any set and is given explicitly by , which is the smallest transitive relation containing . This construction includes all pairs connected by finite chains of length at least 1 and works for both finite and infinite sets.[19]Enumeration
Counting Methods
Counting transitive binary relations on a finite set of elements presents significant challenges due to the dependencies imposed by the transitivity condition. While the total number of binary relations is simply , transitivity requires that whenever and are included, must also be present, preventing independent selection of pairs and complicating direct combinatorial enumeration. This interdependence often leads to an exponential increase in verification steps, making naive generation inefficient for even moderate .[23] The enumeration of transitive relations is intimately connected to the counting of partial orders, as the latter represent the reflexive and antisymmetric subset of transitive relations. Combinatorial techniques decompose a transitive relation into an equivalence partition of the set (capturing symmetric components) and a partial order on the quotient, allowing the total count to be expressed through convolutions involving the number of partial orders on elements and partitions of the remaining elements. This reduction transforms the problem into aggregating known or computable poset counts, underscoring how transitivity enumeration builds upon poset structures. The sequence , corresponding to OEIS A001035, exemplifies this linkage. These approaches highlight the methodological overlap with poset generation.[23] For reflexive transitive relations—known as preorders or quasi-orders—the counting simplifies to a direct convolution of Stirling numbers of the second kind with , further illustrating the partial order foundation. The computational difficulty of mirrors that of Dedekind numbers (OEIS A000372), which count monotone Boolean functions and require advanced recursive or generative algorithms for evaluation; both sequences grow rapidly and lack closed forms, limiting exact computations to small .[23] Computational approaches, including dynamic programming over subsets, facilitate exact counting for small by maintaining states that track reachable elements or closure properties for partial relations. For example, one can define states based on subsets representing the current "layers" or connected components, updating transitions to enforce transitivity without full matrix storage. Combined with tools like GAP for algebraic computations and nauty for isomorphism handling in related structures (such as unlabelled cases up to ), these methods contribute to enumerations, with labelled transitive relations known up to .[23][24] Such techniques are essential given the absence of closed-form expressions.Known Sequences and Formulas
The number of transitive relations on a set of labeled elements is given by the sequence A006905 in the OEIS, with values computed via recursive relations involving partial orders and Stirling numbers of the second kind.[24] No closed-form formula is known for this count, but an exact expression is , where is the Stirling number of the second kind and is the number of partial orders on labeled elements (OEIS A001035).[25] This formula facilitates computation for small by incorporating the enumeration of transitive digraphs reducible to partial orders, with values verified computationally up to .[24] The first few terms are presented in the following table:| Number of transitive relations | |
|---|---|
| 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 13 |
| 3 | 171 |
| 4 | 3994 |
| 5 | 154303 |
| 6 | 9415189 |
| 7 | 878222530 |
Applications
In Order Theory
In order theory, a preorder on a set is a binary relation that is reflexive and transitive.[28] This structure generalizes partial orders by omitting the antisymmetry condition, allowing elements to be equivalent without being identical. A partial order is a preorder that additionally satisfies antisymmetry: if and , then .[29] This property ensures that distinct elements are strictly comparable only in one direction, forming a partially ordered set (poset) where incomparability is possible between unrelated elements. A strict partial order, in contrast, is an irreflexive and transitive relation on , which is also asymmetric as a consequence.[30] It arises naturally from a partial order by defining if and , providing a way to exclude reflexivity for applications requiring strict inequalities. Hasse diagrams visualize finite posets by representing the transitive reduction, where edges depict only the cover relation: if and no exists with .[31] This reduction omits reflexive loops and transitive edges, yielding a directed acyclic graph that highlights the minimal structure of the partial order for intuitive comprehension. A fundamental theorem states that every preorder on a set induces a partition of into equivalence classes via the relation defined by if and only if and , which is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.[32] The quotient set consists of these equivalence classes . Defining a relation on by if yields a partial order, as reflexivity follows from , antisymmetry from the distinctness of classes under , and transitivity from that of . This quotient poset captures the ordering up to equivalence, with the proof relying on verifying these properties directly from the definitions.[32]In Graph Theory and Computer Science
In directed graphs, the adjacency relation is transitive if and only if the graph is a transitive digraph, meaning that whenever there is a directed edge from vertex to and from to , there is also a direct edge from to . This property ensures the graph contains all implied edges under transitivity, forming a structure without "missing" transitive connections. In the special case of tournaments—complete directed graphs with exactly one directed edge between every pair of vertices—the adjacency relation is transitive if and only if the tournament is a transitive tournament, which is acyclic and corresponds to a total order on the vertices. The reachability relation in a directed graph, which holds between two vertices if there exists a directed path connecting them, is always transitive by definition, as the existence of paths from to and to implies a path from to .[33] This relation can be computed using the transitive closure of the graph's adjacency matrix, a process that identifies all pairwise reachabilities. One efficient method for this computation is a variant of the Floyd-Warshall algorithm, adapted from its original shortest-path formulation to use boolean operations (logical OR and AND) instead of addition and minimization; it runs in time for a graph with vertices, making it suitable for dense graphs where all-pairs reachability is needed.[34] Transitive relations find practical applications in computer science, particularly in database query optimization and type systems for programming languages. In relational database models, transitive dependencies occur when a non-key attribute functionally depends on another non-key attribute through a key, violating third normal form (3NF) and leading to redundancy; normalization techniques eliminate these by decomposing relations to ensure dependencies are direct, as formalized in Codd's framework for relational integrity. Similarly, in programming languages, the subtype relation—where a type is a subtype of if values of can be used wherever is expected—is transitive, enabling type inference algorithms to propagate subtyping rules across hierarchies for safe polymorphism without explicit casts. An illustrative example appears in social network analysis, where the "friend-of-a-friend" recommendation leverages the transitive closure of the friendship relation: if user is directly connected to , and to , then and are indirectly connected, suggesting potential edges to enhance network growth or user engagement models.[35]Related Concepts
Comparisons with Other Binary Relation Properties
A transitive relation on a set is compared to other binary relation properties such as reflexivity, symmetry, and asymmetry, which define distinct structures when combined. Reflexivity requires that for every , holds, ensuring self-relation for all elements.[36] When combined with transitivity, reflexivity yields a preorder, a structure that generalizes partial orders by allowing non-antisymmetric elements.[2] Symmetry stipulates that if , then for all , promoting bidirectional relations.[36] The combination of transitivity, symmetry, and reflexivity forms an equivalence relation, partitioning the set into equivalence classes where elements are indistinguishable under .[2] For instance, equality on real numbers exemplifies this trio of properties.[37] Asymmetry demands that if , then for all with , excluding mutual relations and implying irreflexivity.[36] Pairing asymmetry with transitivity produces a strict partial order, a irreflexive and asymmetric structure suitable for modeling strict inequalities, such as the less-than relation on natural numbers.[37] Relations violating transitivity often involve cycles, where chains fail to close appropriately. For example, consider the relation on ; here, and , but , demonstrating non-transitivity despite pairwise connections.[36] Such cyclic configurations, like rock-paper-scissors preferences, highlight how transitivity enforces acyclic chaining.[2] The following table summarizes key combinations of transitivity with other properties, focusing on resulting structures:| Properties Combined with Transitivity | Resulting Structure | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Reflexivity | Preorder | on real numbers (allows equivalence) |
| Reflexivity + Symmetry | Equivalence Relation | Equality () |
| Asymmetry (implies irreflexivity) | Strict Partial Order | Strict less-than () |
