I start with this, right?



---------- Post added 12-06-2009 at 08:37 PM ----------

I've been doing some more thinking.

For the relation to be non-transitive all we need is 1 case where Rxy ^ Ryz > notRxz

so this would be read as:

ExEyEz (Rxy ^ Ryz > not Rxz)

For the relation to be non-reflexive , it must be that there is at least one case where Rww (or could I write this as Rxx) is not true

Ew(notRww)

So we get:

ExEyEz (Rxy ^ Ryz > Rxz) > Ew(notRww)

Before when I said AxnotRxx what I was saying was that every x fails to be reflexive, but i think all we need to do is show simply once cause where it fails...

I'm just trying to figure this stuff out.

Hey Horace.. I know you havent used this forum for a while, but if you still get this message, can you message me? I need some help with philosophy. My email is [email protected]. Thx i would really appreciate it!