Q.Let be a relation from to defined by . Are the following true?
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →The relation is not reflexive, not symmetric, and not transitive. Only specific numbers satisfy each property — not all natural numbers. The answers are (i) False,
(ii) False,
(iii) False.
Why the Arrow Diagram Tells the Story
Think of as a machine: you feed in a natural number , and it spits out its square . So the pairs in look like , , , , and so on. The first element is always a perfect square, and the second element is its square root.
If you draw an arrow diagram with on both sides, an arrow goes from (left) to (right). This immediately shows the relation is very one-directional and sparse — most numbers don't appear as the first element at all.
Checking Each Property
1. Is for every ?
For to be in , we need . That means , so . The only natural numbers satisfying this are (not in as defined here — usually starts from 1) and .
So only is in . For , we'd need , which is false. For , ? No.
A common mistake: thinking "if , then putting gives " — but that's exactly the condition that fails for most . Reflexivity requires the same element on both sides, not a different .
Conclusion: is false for all . So statement (i) is false.
2. Does imply ?
If , then . For symmetry, we'd need , which means .
Substituting into gives , so , i.e. . The only natural solution is , giving .
Take a concrete counterexample: because . But would require , which is false.
Symmetry fails because squaring is not reversible in — if is the square of , then is the square root of , and only is its own square root.
Conclusion: Statement (ii) is false. …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.