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
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.