in Set Theory & Algebra recategorized by
845 views
0 votes
0 votes

in Set Theory & Algebra recategorized by
845 views

17 Comments

$I.$ is not reflexive
1
1
i did very silly mistake while checking for 2 i checked reflexive and symmetric but for poset it should be antisymmetric which is true here :(
0
0
1
1

have you givem CBT ? @Mk Utkarsh

0
0
No
0
0

@Mk Utkarsh

I ask you very silly question but i have to clear my doubt :p

{(1,1),(2,2) , (3,3)}  ---> this is POSET

(3,3) R (1,1) --- > but his is not even hold the 2nd condition right ??

0
0
what's the approach that's we have to follow ?
0
0

but (1,1)R(3,3) will hold

1
1
or you can interchange postions of (1,1) and (3,3) but still it will be anti-symmetric
1
1
but it also accept

(1,3) R (3,1) nah ?? which is not valid here ?
0
0
why not valid? (am i missing something :|)
0
0
edited by
(1,3) R (3,1) is not closed under anti-symmetric matrix right ???

but here The statement II accept that relation too which is not correct right ?
0
0
anti-symmetric*

(1,3) R (3,1) is closed because 1 < 3

but (3,1) R (1,3) is not in relation as it is a anti-symmetric
1
1
Now i got it completely thanks
0
0

 you made me question myself :p

1
1
xD
0
0

@jatin khachane 1 the this statement must be false too

Round robin sheduling algorithm always five better performance compared to FCFS sheduling algorithm

0
0

Please log in or register to answer this question.

Related questions

Quick search syntax
tags tag:apple
author user:martin
title title:apple
content content:apple
exclude -tag:apple
force match +apple
views views:100
score score:10
answers answers:2
is accepted isaccepted:true
is closed isclosed:true