Answer:
A. This relation is Reflexive and Symmetric
Step-by-step explanation:
A. Before starting to test this relation, let´s remind the definition of these properties. Let R be a relation defined as R⊆A×A, where A is an arbitrary set:
R is Reflexive ↔ (∀a ∈ A)((a,a) ∈ R)
R is Symmetric ↔ (∀a,b ∈ A)("(a,b) ∈ R"⇒"(b,a) ∈ R")
R is Anti-symmetric ↔ (∀a,b ∈ A)("(a,b) ∈ R"∧"(b,a) ∈ R" ⇒ a=b)
R is Transitive ↔ (∀a,b,c ∈ A)("(a,b) ∈ R"∧"(b,c) ∈ R" ⇒ "(a,c) ∈ R")
Where (a,b)∈R ↔ a is Related to b
The question defines R as follows: "<u>a</u> is Related to <u>b</u>" ↔ <u>a</u> and <u>b</u> have a common grandparent. We use the definition and some logic to prove whether R fulfill the definitions above or not:
R is Reflexive: (we try to show that (∀a ∈ A)("(a,a) ∈ R") where A is the set of people we work on)
the elements are people, so we suppose that <u>a</u> has a grandparent. Because <u>a</u> has the same grandparent as <u>a</u> (they are the same person, so they have the same family) and it happens for all people you consider. We conclude that <u>a</u> is Related to <u>a</u> ((a,a) ∈ R), and because <u>a</u> was arbitrary we also shown that this happens to everyone (∀a ∈ A)("(a,a) ∈ R"). This proves that R is Reflexive.
R is Symmetric: (Remember the definition above)
Suppose (a,b) ∈ R, then, "<u>a</u> has a common grandparent with <u>b</u>" and because the grandparent that they share is fixed, it´s true that "<u>b</u> has a common grandparent with <u>a</u>" so we have (b,a) ∈ R. Because we are able to do this whenever we have (a,b) ∈ R we conclude (∀(a,b) ∈ A)("(a,b) ∈ R"⇒"(b,a) ∈ R") and that R is Symmetric.
R is Anti-symmetric: (R does not satisfy this definition)
It´s valid to give an example that does not fulfill the definition to prove definitely that R is not Anti-symmetric. Suppose <u>a</u> and <u>b</u> are brothers, because of this (a,b)∈R, and (b,a)∈R (because we proved that R is symmetric) but a≠b. Now we now that ("(a,b) ∈ R"∧"(b,a) ∈ R" ⇒ a=b) does not happen to every pair in R, so we conclude that R is not Anti-symmetric.
R is transitive: (R does not satisfy this definition either)
Suppose (a,b) ∈ R and (b,c) ∈ R, <u>a</u> and <u>b</u> have a grandparent in common, and the same happens with <u>b</u> and <u>c</u>. It´s not hard to think that, for example, <u>a</u> has the same grandfather as <u>b</u> but <u>b</u> has the same grandmother with <u>c</u>. We show that <u>a</u> could not necessarily be related to <u>c</u>. so (∀a,b,c ∈ A)("(a,b) ∈ R"∧"(b,c) ∈ R" ⇒ "(a,c) ∈ R") it´s not true, and R is not Transitive.