Y indicates that the column's property is always true for the row's term (at the very left), while ✗ indicates that the property is not guaranteed in general (it might, or might not, hold). For example, that every equivalence relation is symmetric, but not necessarily antisymmetric, is indicated by Y in the "Symmetric" column and ✗ in the "Antisymmetric" column, respectively.
All definitions tacitly require the homogeneous relation be transitive: for all if and then
A term's definition may require additional properties that are not listed in this table.
An example of a reflexive relation is the relation "is equal to" on the set of real numbers, since every real number is equal to itself. A reflexive relation is said to have the reflexive property or is said to possess reflexivity. Along with symmetry and transitivity, reflexivity is one of three properties defining equivalence relations.
Etymology
The word reflexive is originally derived from the Medieval Latinreflexivus ('recoiling' [c.f. reflex], or 'directed upon itself') (c. 1250 AD) from the classical Latinreflexus- ('turn away', 'reflection') + -īvus (suffix). The word entered Early Modern English in the 1580s. The sense of the word meaning 'directed upon itself', as now used in mathematics, surviving mostly by its use in philosophy and grammar (c.f. Reflexive verb and Reflexive pronoun).[3][4]
The first explicit use of "reflexivity", that is, describing a relation as having the property that every element is related to itself, is generally attributed to Giuseppe Peano in his Arithmetices principia (1889), wherein he defines one of the fundamental properties of equality being .[5][6] The first use of the word reflexive in the sense of mathematics and logic was by Bertrand Russell in his Principles of Mathematics (1903).[6][7]
Definitions
A relation on the set is said to be reflexive if for every , .
Equivalently, letting denote the identity relation on , the relation is reflexive if .
The reflexive closure of is the union which can equivalently be defined as the smallest (with respect to ) reflexive relation on that is a superset of A relation is reflexive if and only if it is equal to its reflexive closure.
The reflexive reduction or irreflexive kernel of is the smallest (with respect to ) relation on that has the same reflexive closure as It is equal to The reflexive reduction of can, in a sense, be seen as a construction that is the "opposite" of the reflexive closure of
For example, the reflexive closure of the canonical strict inequality on the reals is the usual non-strict inequality whereas the reflexive reduction of is
Related definitions
There are several definitions related to the reflexive property.
The relation is called:
irreflexive, anti-reflexive or aliorelative
[8] if it does not relate any element to itself; that is, if holds for no A relation is irreflexive if and only if its complement in is reflexive. An asymmetric relation is necessarily irreflexive. A transitive and irreflexive relation is necessarily asymmetric.
if every element that is part of some relation is related to itself. Explicitly, this means that whenever are such that then necessarily and Equivalently, a binary relation is quasi-reflexive if and only if it is both left quasi-reflexive and right quasi-reflexive. A relation is quasi-reflexive if and only if its symmetric closure is left (or right) quasi-reflexive.
if whenever are such that then necessarily [10] A relation is coreflexive if and only if its symmetric closure is anti-symmetric.
A reflexive relation on a nonempty set can neither be irreflexive, nor asymmetric ( is called asymmetric if implies not ), nor antitransitive ( is antitransitive if implies not ).
An example of an irreflexive relation, which means that it does not relate any element to itself, is the "greater than" relation () on the real numbers. Not every relation which is not reflexive is irreflexive; it is possible to define relations where some elements are related to themselves but others are not (that is, neither all nor none are). For example, the binary relation "the product of and is even" is reflexive on the set of even numbers, irreflexive on the set of odd numbers, and neither reflexive nor irreflexive on the set of natural numbers.
An example of a quasi-reflexive relation is "has the same limit as" on the set of sequences of real numbers: not every sequence has a limit, and thus the relation is not reflexive, but if a sequence has the same limit as some sequence, then it has the same limit as itself.
An example of a left quasi-reflexive relation is a left Euclidean relation, which is always left quasi-reflexive but not necessarily right quasi-reflexive, and thus not necessarily quasi-reflexive.
An example of a coreflexive relation is the relation on integers in which each odd number is related to itself and there are no other relations. The equality relation is the only example of a both reflexive and coreflexive relation, and any coreflexive relation is a subset of the identity relation. The union of a coreflexive relation and a transitive relation on the same set is always transitive.
Number of reflexive relations
The number of reflexive relations on an -element set is [11]
Number of n-element binary relations of different types
Authors in philosophical logic often use different terminology.
Reflexive relations in the mathematical sense are called totally reflexive in philosophical logic, and quasi-reflexive relations are called reflexive.[12][13]
Clarke, D.S.; Behling, Richard (1998). Deductive Logic – An Introduction to Evaluation Techniques and Logical Theory. University Press of America. ISBN0-7618-0922-8.
Fonseca de Oliveira, José Nuno; Pereira Cunha Rodrigues, César de Jesus (2004), "Transposing relations: from Maybe functions to hash tables", Mathematics of Program Construction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3125, Springer: 334–356, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27764-4_18, ISBN978-3-540-22380-1
Hausman, Alan; Kahane, Howard; Tidman, Paul (2013). Logic and Philosophy – A Modern Introduction. Wadsworth. ISBN978-1-133-05000-1.
Levy, A. (1979), Basic Set Theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Dover, ISBN0-486-42079-5