Relations: Reflexive and Symmetric Questions I'm really confused about the concept of Reflexive and Symmetric relations.
for an example from my textbook:
Let A = {b, c, d, e} and the relation on 'A' be defined as 
R = {(b,b),(b,c),(c,b),(c,c),(d,d),(b,d),(d,b),(c,d),(d,c)}
The book claims that the above relation is not reflexive, because by its definition, xRx must be true for all x ∈ A, however the pair (e,e) is not in R, so R is not reflexive. 
But! The book also claimed that the relation above IS symmetric because 
R contains: bRc and cRb, bRd and dRb, dRc and cRd....but I can use the same argument that it made for the reflexive definition "for ALL of x,y ∈ A" and in this case, the relation R does not have (bRe and eRb), (cRe and eRc), (dRe and eRd) and etc... in the set R...
This is what I'm really confused about; why is R not reflexive because it doesn't have the element "e" in R, and on the other hand R is symmetric while R don't contain "e" at all? I mean the definition of symmetric is xRy -> yRx for ALL x,y ∈ A.
Thanks

The key is in the definitions.  Let's look at them more carefully.
A relation $R$ on $A$ is reflexive when for all $x\in A$ we have $xRx$.  As you pointed out, $e\in A$ but we don't have $eRe$, and therefore by definition this is not a reflexive relation.
The definition for symmetric relations is a bit different.  A relation $R$ on $A$ is symmetric when for all $x,y\in A$, $xRy$ implies $yRx$.  In other words: if you give me $x$ and $y$, AND we know that $xRy$, then we must also have $yRx$.
So, the fact that we don't have $dRe$ isn't a problem.  IF we knew that $eRd$, THEN symmetry would require $dRe$; but, because we don't have either, the symmetry relation is satisfied.
Another way of stating the definition of symmetry is that for all $x,y\in A$, we must either have (a) both $xRy$ and $yRx$, or (b) neither $xRy$ nor $yRx$.
