Talk:Nonreflexive relation

Is this the right definition?
I'm not certain I recognize the notation used in this article, but it apparently says that a relation R is nonreflexive if no item x in the universe of discourse is related to itself. This corresponds to an irreflexive relation in mathematics. It also conflicts with the explanation given in the notes at the end of this article – the notes were prepared by Professor William S. Boardman, of Lawrence University.

So what's up? Is the definition in this article correct? Or is a nonreflexive relation one which is neither reflexive nor irreflexive? Or have I just misinterpreted the rather terse definition offered at the outset of this article? DavidCBryant 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the entry. It's nonreflexive when there exists an x such that x doesn't have the relation to itself. Gregbard 11:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a nonreflexive relation is where $$\exists x \neg Rxx$$, I agree. But all the definitions of partimreflexive that I've seen (this article excluded) have been a relation that is neither reflexive nor irreflexive, that is,
 * $$\exists x \neg Rxx \wedge \exists y Ryy$$ ('some element is related to itself and some other element isn't')
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

redirect
I've redirected this page to reflexive relation. This is a no-content page with no sources or substance. Apologies in my edit summary, I said "set" when I meant "relation" (although a relation often defined as a set). I was sort of brain-dead I suppose. --Cheeser1 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)