Strict and Non-strict Partial Orders
In some contexts, the partial order defined above is called a non-strict (or reflexive, or weak) partial order. In these contexts a strict (or irreflexive) partial order "<" is a binary relation that is irreflexive and transitive, and therefore asymmetric. In other words, asymmetric (hence irreflexive) and transitive.
Thus, for all a, b, and c in P, we have that:
- ¬(a < a) (irreflexivity);
- if a < b then ¬(b < a) (asymmetry); and
- if a < b and b < c then a < c (transitivity).
There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between all non-strict and strict partial orders.
If "≤" is a non-strict partial order, then the corresponding strict partial order "<" is the reflexive reduction given by:
- a < b if and only if (a ≤ b and a ≠ b)
Conversely, if "<" is a strict partial order, then the corresponding non-strict partial order "≤" is the reflexive closure given by:
- a ≤ b if and only if a < b or a = b.
This is the reason for using the notation "≤".
Strict partial orders are useful because they correspond more directly to directed acyclic graphs (dags): every strict partial order is a dag, and the transitive closure of a dag is both a strict partial order and also a dag itself.
Read more about this topic: Partially Ordered Set
Famous quotes containing the words strict, partial and/or orders:
“In a universe that is all gradations of matter, from gross to fine to finer, so that we end up with everything we are composed of in a lattice, a grid, a mesh, a mist, where particles or movements so small we cannot observe them are held in a strict and accurate web, that is nevertheless nonexistent to the eyes we use for ordinary living—in this system of fine and finer, where then is the substance of a thought?”
—Doris Lessing (b. 1919)
“You must not be partial in judging: hear out the small and the great alike; you shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.”
—Bible: Hebrew, Deuteronomy 1:17.
“Let’s start with the three fundamental Rules of Robotics.... We have: one, a robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Two, a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. And three, a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.”
—Isaac Asimov (1920–1992)