nLab irreflexive comparison

Idea

Just as preorders generalise equivalence relations and total orders, irreflexive comparisons should generalise apartness relations and strict total orders

Definitions

An irreflexive comparison on a set $S$ is a (binary) relation $\lt$ on $S$ that is both irreflexive and a comparison. That is:

• $x \lt x$ is always false;
• If $x \lt z$, then $x \lt y$ or $y \lt z$

Properties

A set $S$ equipped with an irreflexive comparison is a category (with $S$ as the set of objects) enriched over the cartesian monoidal category $TV^\op$, that is the opposite of the poset of truth values, made into a monoidal category using disjunction. $TV^\op$ is a co-Heyting algebra.

Preorder of an irreflexive comparison

An important part of an irreflexive comparison is that it is a preorder.

Theorem

The negation of an irreflexive comparison is transitive.

Proof

The contrapositive of comparison says that

for all $x$, $y$, and $z$, if $x \lt y$ or $y \lt z$ is false, then $x \lt z$ is false.

By one of de Morgan's laws, that $x \lt y$ or $y \lt z$ is false is logically to equivalent to that $\neg(x \lt y)$ and $\neg(y \lt z)$, and substituting this into the original statement results in

if $\neg(x \lt y)$ and $\neg(y \lt z)$, then $\neg(x \lt z)$

which is precisely transitivity for the negation of the irreflexive comparison.

Theorem

The negation of an irreflexive comparison is reflexive.

Proof

Irreflexivity states that $\neg (x \lt x)$ is true, which is precisely reflexivity for the negation of the strict weak order.

Theorem

The negation of an irreflexive comparison is a preorder.

Corollary

The incomparability relation of a strict weak order, $\neg (x \lt y) \wedge \neg (y \lt x)$, is an equivalence relation

Proof

For every preorder, $(x \leq y) \wedge (y \leq x)$ is an equivalence relation. Since $\neg (x \lt y)$ is a preorder, $\neg (x \lt y) \wedge \neg (y \lt x)$ is an equivalence relation.

Theorem

If the irreflexive comparison is a connected relation, then its negation is a partial order.

Proof

The connectedness condition states that $\neg (x \lt y) \wedge \neg (y \lt x)$ implies equality, which is precisely the antisymmetry condition for the negation of the strict weak order, implying that its negation is a partial order.

Theorem

If the irreflexive comparison is an apartness relation, then its negation is an equivalence relation.

Proof

The symmetry condition of the apartness relation states that $x \lt y$ implies $y \lt x$ for all $x$ and $y$. It’s contrapositive states that $\neg(y \lt x)$ implies $\neg(x \lt y)$ for all $x$ and $y$, which is the symmetry condition for the negation of $\lt$. A symmetric preorder is the same thing as an equivalence relation, which means that the negation of $\lt$ is an equivalence relation.

Theorem

If the irreflexive comparison is a tight apartness relation, then its negation is the equality relation.

Proof

This follows from the previous two theorems.

 Examples

• If an irreflexive comparison satisfies symmetry (if $x \lt y$ then $y \lt x$ then it is an apartness relation.

• If an irreflexive comparison is asymmetric (if $x \lt y$, then $\neg(y \lt x)$) or transitive (if $x \lt y$ and $y \lt z$, then $x \lt z$), then it is a strict weak order.

• Connected versions of the above result in tight apartness relations and strict total orders.

Connected irreflexive comparisons

• An irreflexive comparison that is also a connected relation (if $x \lt y$ is false and $y \lt x$ is false, then $x = y$) is a connected irreflexive comparison.

• If the set is an inequality space, then an irreflexive comparison is strongly connected if $x \neq y$ implies $x \lt y$ or $y \lt x$.

Related concepts

• apartness relation

• tight apartness relation

• strict total order

• strict weak order

• preorder

• partial order

• strict preorder