Quasitransitive relation

Last updated
The quasitransitive relation x<=
.mw-parser-output .sfrac{white-space:nowrap}.mw-parser-output .sfrac.tion,.mw-parser-output .sfrac .tion{display:inline-block;vertical-align:-0.5em;font-size:85%;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .sfrac .num{display:block;line-height:1em;margin:0.0em 0.1em;border-bottom:1px solid}.mw-parser-output .sfrac .den{display:block;line-height:1em;margin:0.1em 0.1em}.mw-parser-output .sr-only{border:0;clip:rect(0,0,0,0);clip-path:polygon(0px 0px,0px 0px,0px 0px);height:1px;margin:-1px;overflow:hidden;padding:0;position:absolute;width:1px}
5/4y. Its symmetric and transitive part is shown in blue and green, respectively. Quasitransitive 25 percent margin.gif
The quasitransitive relation x≤⁠5/4⁠y. Its symmetric and transitive part is shown in blue and green, respectively.

The mathematical notion of quasitransitivity is a weakened version of transitivity that is used in social choice theory and microeconomics. Informally, a relation is quasitransitive if it is symmetric for some values and transitive elsewhere. The concept was introduced by Sen (1969) to study the consequences of Arrow's theorem.

Contents

Formal definition

A binary relation T over a set X is quasitransitive if for all a, b, and c in X the following holds:

If the relation is also antisymmetric, T is transitive.

Alternately, for a relation T, define the asymmetric or "strict" part P:

Then T is quasitransitive if and only if P is transitive.

Examples

Preferences are assumed to be quasitransitive (rather than transitive) in some economic contexts. The classic example is a person indifferent between 7 and 8 grams of sugar and indifferent between 8 and 9 grams of sugar, but who prefers 9 grams of sugar to 7. [1] Similarly, the Sorites paradox can be resolved by weakening assumed transitivity of certain relations to quasitransitivity.

Properties

See also

References

  1. ↑ Robert Duncan Luce (Apr 1956). "Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination". Econometrica. 24 (2): 178–191. doi:10.2307/1905751. JSTOR   1905751. Here: p.179; Luce's original example consists in 400 comparisons (of coffee cups with different amounts of sugar) rather than just 2.
  2. ↑ The naming follows Bossert & Suzumura (2009), p.2-3.— For the only-if part, define xJy as xRy ∧ yRx, and define xPy as xRy ∧ ¬yRx. — For the if part, assume xRy ∧ ¬yRx ∧ yRz ∧ ¬zRy holds. Then xPy and yPz, since xJy or yJz would contradict ¬yRx or ¬zRy. Hence xPz by transitivity, ¬xJz by disjointness, ¬zJx by symmetry. Therefore, zRx would imply zPx, and, by transitivity, zPy, which contradicts ¬zRy. Altogether, this proves xRz ∧ ¬zRx.
  3. ↑ For example, if R is an equivalence relation, J may be chosen as the empty relation, or as R itself, and P as its complement.
  4. ↑ Given R, whenever xRy ∧ ¬yRx holds, the pair (x,y) can't belong to the symmetric part, but must belong to the transitive part.
  5. ↑ Since the empty relation is trivially both transitive and symmetric.
  6. ↑ The antisymmetry of R forces J to be coreflexive; hence the union of J and the transitive P is again transitive.