95:
85:
64:
31:
22:
231:
their names) that every relation is either symmetric or antisymmetric, (or reflexive or irreflexive) I would prefer to keep the articles separate. I did like some of the things you did in the merge, for example having a separate
Examples section. Can you elaborate on what you think the problems are with this page as it is now? Let's see if together, we can fix them. Thanks again.
400:: "is married to" is not the same as "is married to the same person as". "is married to" is a (typically) binary relation between spouses. So I was wrong to put it in the antisymmetric column. I'm changing that example. "is married to the same person as" implies there are at least 3 people married to each other.
274:
I prefer to have separate articles for separate things. Yes having both properties in the same article, would make it easier to compare these two properties, but I think the vast majority of readers will simply want to know either about symmetric relations or antisymmetric relations, not both. I find
246:
Well one inherint problem with having many, but short, articles is that they become more cumbersome to switch between. I think that strongly noting the misimpressions in a merged article would be a good way of doing it. But another good way to do it would be to keep them separate, and touch them up -
173:
I think it is a good category to have. This page is small, its true, but categories help people find exactly what they're looking for. Most people are looking for something specific and don't want to read the entire article - no matter how small. I know it was a badly written title, but i hoped that
365:
Note that symmetry is not the logical opposite of antisymmetry.... There are no relations which are both symmetric and antisymmetric..., there are relations which are neither symmetric nor antisymmetric..., there are relations which are symmetric and not antisymmetric..., and there are
369:
In order to show that two terms are not logical opposites of each other, it suffices to show that something either satisfies both or fails to satisfy both. Showing that something satisfies one and not the other does not serve the purpose of showing that the terms are not logical opposites of each
339:
I hope your "well crap" was of the friendly and good natured kind ;-) If you are feeling frustrated with me them I'm sorry, please accept my apologies. I will be happy to split up reflexive and irreflexive if you want. In fact I have been thinking about rewriting all of these articles, but I just
214:
Hey, I merged the articles to resemble the merged pages "reflexive relation" and "irreflexive relation". It would be fine for them to be separate pages - but they are hard to read as it stands - and the asymmetric part of the antisymmetric page doesn't really fit since it is the combination of two
548:
That's fine, I just had some questions. Did you see at least my intention in the comment? The concepts of symmetric/not symmetric and symmetric/antisymmetric are orthogonal, as discussed in the article. The concepts of transitive/intransitive and transitive/antitransitive are not; antitransitive
230:
Hi
Fresheneesz. Thanks for coming here to discuss your proposed changes. Yes, I'm not particularly happy with the merge of "reflexive" and "irreflexive" either. Among other things, I think that having them in the same article unfortunately reinforces the misimpression (which naturally comes form
250:
I think for starters we should probably just organize the relation property pages with one or two headers for examples and such. It would probably also be useful to standardize the format of these pages. I have already made some tables for the example relations for a couple different types of
263:
I still think it is more concise and easier to read if the pages are merged. One can directly compare reflexivity and irreflexivity (noting that irreflexive is not merely the lack of reflexivity) without jumping between pages. Can I merge again? I'll have to say no answer means yes.
593:
to be taken with the similarity: (1) the strict/non-strict distinction is present on the symmetry, but absent on the transitivity side, (2) in the non-strict case each coreflexive relation is an exception, (3) on the strict side, the empty relation is an
174:
people would *fix* it - not delete it. Can I put the title back in as "Combinations of
Symmetric property and other properties" ? Wordy but i can't think of anything better right now. I sorta actually like my original better - more succinct.
299:
I'm going to merge the symmetric relation page, and the antisymmetric relation page again. I think this is the best way to exemplify that they are not exact opposites. I'll wait a bit for comments before i proceed.
614:
I see what you were trying to say much better now, and agree that although your explanation makes sense, it would be a bit distracting in the context of the article. We can leave it as "less is more" for now.
611:
The word "unsymmetric" is uncommon but doesn't sound like a completely invented word, at least to me. If we were to invent a word then insymmetric would be appropriate, but it sounds even stranger.
151:
570:
I think I got your intention, and I find your remark quite interesting. Indeed I meant "not symmetric" by "unsymmetric" (this may be an unusual term - I'm not a native
English speaker).
661:
247:
also link them to eachother *while* noting the misimpressions. Yet another way to go would be to merge ALL types of relations (or perhaps split the properties into subcategories).
666:
651:
555:
It would be nice to get at least some link to the other article in here, whether to highlight the differences or the similarity. Not the end of the world though.
275:
it annoying when I want to look up something like "antisymmetry", and I get the "symmetry" page, and I have to read down the page to find what I'm looking for.
35:
656:
676:
141:
671:
646:
183:
There is nothing wrong with using the metaphor of containment to describe relations among properties corresponding to conjunction of predicates.
199:. I've reverted the merge, because I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. Please diiscuss here before remerging these two articles. Thanks.
117:
382:
641:
108:
69:
573:
As for the implication: antisymmetry also implies unsymmetry, with few expections. On the non-strict side, a relation can be both
545:
imo, names are pretty similar - symmetric:unsymmetric:antisymmetric is much like transitive:intransitive:antitransitive
44:
602:
620:
560:
386:
21:
523:
581:, i.e. if it implies equality of its arguments. On the strict side, a relation that is both symmetric and
506:
196:
598:
538:
344:
314:
279:
235:
203:
50:
94:
322:
well crap. Then if you don't want to split up reflexive and irreflexive, i'll have to do it... later.
616:
578:
556:
472:
416:
597:
I'm not sure if my clumsy explanations can be summarized to a nice little remark in the article. -
373:
184:
116:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
587:"symmetric : unsymmetric : antisymmetric is much like transitive : intransitive : antitransitive"
519:
458:
100:
84:
63:
552:
I also didn't see a definition of unsymmetric. I assume this means the same as not symmetric?
503:
405:
341:
323:
311:
301:
288:
276:
265:
252:
232:
219:
200:
175:
218:- I'm open to comments and would like to know why you think my organization isn't helpful.
340:
haven't gotten around to it yet. i've been (and am) a bit busy in real life I'm afraid.
635:
590:
381:
The equivalence relation is an example of a symmetric and anti-symmetric relation.
401:
113:
90:
585:
symmetric, must necessarily be empty. With these exceptions, the similarity
624:
606:
564:
527:
509:
409:
390:
376:
347:
326:
317:
304:
291:
282:
268:
255:
238:
222:
206:
178:
515:
433:
iff (exists z) such that x is married to z and y is married to z.
287:
Alright, you wanna fix up the reflexive and irreflexive page?
15:
366:
relations which are not symmetric but are anti-symmetric....
415:
If a relation is symmetric and antisymmetric, it is
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
589:from my edit summary applies. So there are three
541:I noticed you reverted an edit with the comment:
478:A person is married to at most one other person.
662:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Mathematics
310:I still have the same objections noted above.
8:
251:relation properties (i'm waiting for Amane)
577:symmetric and symmetric, but only if it is
19:
514:The third law is not valid in the case of
58:
667:Start-Class vital articles in Mathematics
533:Relative to transitivity/antitransitivity
652:Knowledge vital articles in Mathematics
60:
437:Given the usual laws about marriage:
7:
106:This article is within the scope of
191:Merging symmetric and antisymmetric
49:It is of interest to the following
657:Start-Class level-5 vital articles
14:
677:Mid-priority mathematics articles
486:is married to the same person as
429:is married to the same person as
126:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
672:Start-Class mathematics articles
647:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
169:Properties "containing" relation
129:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
146:This article has been rated as
528:04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
391:19:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
348:15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
327:11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
318:04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
305:03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
292:21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
283:20:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
269:18:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
256:21:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
239:17:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
223:05:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
207:03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
120:and see a list of open tasks.
377:18:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
179:05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
510:20:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
410:20:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
693:
642:Start-Class vital articles
625:18:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
607:16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
565:16:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
145:
78:
57:
358:Not logical opposites...
195:User 68.6.112.70 merged
152:project's priority scale
109:WikiProject Mathematics
549:implies intransitive.
419:. "Is married to" is
215:relational properties.
197:Antisymmetric relation
36:level-5 vital article
132:mathematics articles
467:is not married to
101:Mathematics portal
45:content assessment
482:It follows that "
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
684:
599:Jochen Burghardt
539:Jochen Burghardt
362:Regarding this:
187:2 December 2005
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
692:
691:
687:
686:
685:
683:
682:
681:
632:
631:
617:Davidvandebunte
557:Davidvandebunte
535:
494:is married and
398:
367:
360:
193:
171:
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
92:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
690:
688:
680:
679:
674:
669:
664:
659:
654:
649:
644:
634:
633:
630:
629:
628:
627:
612:
595:
591:grains of salt
571:
534:
531:
480:
479:
476:
462:
453:is married to
445:is married to
435:
434:
424:
397:
394:
383:131.111.184.91
364:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
332:
331:
330:
329:
297:
296:
295:
294:
261:
260:
259:
258:
248:
228:
227:
226:
225:
216:
192:
189:
170:
167:
164:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
689:
678:
675:
673:
670:
668:
665:
663:
660:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
645:
643:
640:
639:
637:
626:
622:
618:
613:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
553:
550:
546:
542:
540:
532:
530:
529:
525:
521:
520:GeoffreyT2000
517:
512:
511:
508:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
477:
474:
470:
466:
463:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
432:
428:
425:
422:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
395:
393:
392:
388:
384:
379:
378:
375:
371:
363:
357:
349:
346:
343:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
328:
325:
321:
320:
319:
316:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
293:
290:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
257:
254:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
237:
234:
224:
221:
217:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
202:
198:
190:
188:
186:
181:
180:
177:
168:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
586:
582:
574:
554:
551:
547:
543:
536:
513:
504:Arthur Rubin
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
481:
468:
464:
454:
450:
446:
442:
436:
430:
426:
420:
399:
380:
372:
368:
361:
298:
262:
229:
194:
182:
172:
148:Mid-priority
147:
107:
73:Mid‑priority
51:WikiProjects
34:
579:coreflexive
473:irreflexive
417:coreflexive
342:Paul August
324:Fresheneesz
312:Paul August
302:Fresheneesz
289:Fresheneesz
277:Paul August
266:Fresheneesz
253:Fresheneesz
233:Paul August
220:Fresheneesz
201:Paul August
176:Fresheneesz
123:Mathematics
114:mathematics
70:Mathematics
41:Start-class
636:Categories
594:exception.
459:symmetric
39:is rated
516:polygamy
396:Marriage
374:Jdthood
370:other.
185:Jdthood
150:on the
507:(talk)
490:" iff
402:Libcub
47:scale.
544:: -->
502:. —
449:then
28:This
621:talk
603:talk
575:anti
561:talk
524:talk
457:. (
406:talk
387:talk
441:If
421:not
142:Mid
638::
623:)
605:)
563:)
526:)
518:.
498:=
408:)
389:)
619:(
601:(
583:a
559:(
537:@
522:(
500:y
496:x
492:x
488:y
484:x
475:)
471:(
469:x
465:x
461:)
455:x
451:y
447:y
443:x
431:y
427:x
423:.
404:(
385:(
345:☎
315:☎
280:☎
236:☎
204:☎
154:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
