Introduction to Partial Ordering

[@vikrambabariya5166]

Neso's way of teaching is the best!

[@risimamathebula4035]

you don't understand how helpful this video was, cos my lecturer was literally making no sense. THANK YOU!!!!!

[@MrNb-xu7jl]

thank you. everything was literally on point. just when I wanted to ask something, you gave me the answer the next second.

[@morbidreality4909]

You are saving the world. The real avenger

[@DemonSlayer-bv3nm]

Finally found a good math channel in you tube ❤

[@philipedekobi297]

Explained my lecturer's last 4 classes in 15.5 mins😭😂

[@nilaypatil4721]

😭😭😂

[@srinivasviswanadhapalli8093]

😂😂

[@priyaparmar1886]

I saw you third time today with the same comment😂

[@tarupathak]

Us moment🥹

[@tinnyw2]

This is a great video, I was really struggling with understanding this concept.

[@samarthtandale9121]

Seriously, this is really awesome and well thought explaination!

[@_Anna_Nass_]

Thank you, Neso 🎉

[@VeenaVinayaktorvi]

superb explanation... wish you could teach all my msc topics...am ur fan❤

[@thesaniyaatar1142]

Given a set X={2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8} then divides is a partially ordered relation on X draw the Hasse diagram of POSET where | means divides.

[@thesigma3779]

Best explaination till now on any channel , best channel !😇❤

[@AnilKumar-rl1kn]

dear sir which platform you use to make the PPT.

[@ramankumar41]

Nice explanation !!!

[@chusrangagasirmarak4247]

I dont understand it ,why do you use a,b instead of using some numbers given in the set S in example 1 and 2 aswell. It would be easier for viewers if use explain using those numbers

[@RashidSiddiqui]

nice, thanks. Good explanation.

[@shaikchanmehboob7958]

1st viewer😊

[@starrynight3526]

Amazing and make more such helpful videos👍👍👍👍

[@devmallik7749]

Can you give example for better understanding like in this video you gave in 11:35 min.

[@RKARAN-zs5zn]

(1,1)(2,2)(3,3)(4,4)(6,6)

[@AbhishekThakur-fk7px]

Thank you so much sir.

[@17Hieng]

Very clear explaination

[@user-rf4te3nx3q]

Thaaaaaank uuuu u’re a life saver

[@venkatarohitpotnuru38]

thanks man:)

[@proton3773]

Just wow😌

[@pranavnyavanandi9710]

Hello @Neso_Academy. I have a doubt. Here's how you defined the meaning of "partial" in Partial-Ordered-Set: The word "partial" in "partial ordering" indicates that not every pair of element in a set is comparable. And comparable means that, the pair of elements are related by the partial ordering relation, that is, "a R b" or "b R a". But then, by this definition every other type of relation, say, an equivalence relation, would also be partial. I am not saying it would be a partially ordered relation but it would be a partial equivalence relation. Why? Because, in an equivalence relation also, not every pair of elements in the set upon which the relation is defined on, are comparable. If this is the case, then partial is not a special property of a poset only but that of every relation since it does not always relate all the elements of a set. Further, every relation does the ordering of elements of a set based on some condition or rule, so what's so special or different about partial ordering? The way I see it, every relation is partial ordering of the elements of a set. Hope I have understood it right. If not, kindly clarify.

[@santerisatama5409]

Partial ordering is defined as 1)Reflexive, 2)Antisymmetric and 3)Transitive. Equivalence relation is symmetric, and thus not partial according to the definition. The term "partial" is used to distinguish from 'totally ordered set', where every pair is comparable, extending the definition with 4) a ≤ b or b ≤ a (strongly connected, formerly called total) to the definition. According to wiki, the informal, intuitive meaning of poset is that "Two elements x and y may stand in any of four mutually exclusive relationships to each other: either x < y, or x = y, or x > y, or x and y are incomparable." Your doubt might originate from this: on a deeper intuitive level, the simplest and most natural definition/derivation or equivalence relation comes from negation of relational operators: if A is neither more nor less than B, then A = B (in a given suitably comparable context). Note that interval from 2 to 4 is both more and less than 3 in the standard ordering of integers. Conditioning by Classical Aristotelean logic (which more or less bans "both-and" and "neither nor") has strong tendency to hide deeply intuitive relations like 'both more and less' and 'neither more nor less' from thinking. Working with intuitive and paraconsistent logics is highly recommended. :)

[@betelihemwereta2268]

Thank You!

[@kuppi._-94]

Thank you very much

[@danaizadpanah1257]

True hero

[@Memes-ry7tp]

what is "a" and "b" i am confused

[@lavanjv4414]

Awesome teaching ,just amazing.

[@JaiBothra]

you look like a cookie if it were a human

[@Abid-qp2jm]

thank u bhai

[@AshishKumar-gl2ur]

You should also explain where in the industry it is used? Why one should know about this. Just putting theory is dumb.

[@uzefaswati5637]

Thank you sir

[@ahmetkarakartal9563]

I dont understand the result in 11:23 2 divides 1 but the result is not be integer. But in the question I dont see any restriction for this

[@collegematerial5348]

please tell i also not understand this relation is not antisymmetric because 1 divide 2 ,2 divide 1 but 1 is not equal to 2 so how is possible to be partial order

[@nava3548]

@@collegematerial5348 also stuck on that 😑

[@AbdullahKhan-pv1qz]

2/1=2 but 1/2 is not equal to integer.

[@fezphilip7024]

It's in the definition of "divides". The quotient has to be an Integer. That is, the remainder has to be zero. Otherwise every Integer can of course divide every other Integer.

[@maryamalizadeh1498]

Thank yooou!

[@yashmalve8804]

Please enable the caption or subtitles in your videos

[@nethajis1384]

Can any one answer. How many partial order relations are possible on set of n elements?

[@_Anna_Nass_]

I don’t know but good question, I’m commenting here in case someone answers it.

[@MATHEMATICALSCIENCE-__________]

Let A = {1, 2,3, 4} and let R be a relation on A defined by R {(1,1), (1, 2), (2, 4), ,2), (4,3)}. Find the smallest transitive relation R* on A containing . Give explanation of this Question. PLEASE....

[@manvigupta1938]

use warshall method to solve this by matrices

[@Jennifer-vi2bm]

Life saver 🥹

[@davekenjoplojr.266]

What is a poset? Isn't that what we usually have in our sinks where we could turn the water on and off?

[@maludatech]

Tf 😭😭😭😂😂

[@amarnath1828]

Dude thanks man arigato

[@monicabattacharya6416]

please complete discrete mathematics and datastructures

[@uday2159]

Had u complete ur undergraduation?

[@omkarjadhav9008]

5:17 they are not antisymmetric They are Asymmetric.

[@omkarjadhav9008]

Bro making easy topics difficult 😅

[@leetchoy]

cool

[@techanshul]

Wow

[@shambo9807]

I wish i had money to give you

[@collegematerial5348]

please upload function also . upload fast university exam are there safe my future it's a request

[@devangprabhune3591]

u from which university?

[@collegematerial5348]

@@devangprabhune3591 aktu

[@rajeshprajapati4863]

Function is completed on their website.

[@swatiswagatikamuduli9279]

@@rajeshprajapati4863 but these are paid

[@rajeshprajapati4863]

@@swatiswagatikamuduli9279 price is too low.

[@appayyagariaswini2060]

🤜🤛

[@gaurav561crazy5]

Hm

[@omnigod5760]

gehu gang

[@sweets1011]

Thank you sir