# Is this ordering of examples redundant in Rank SVM?

I was studying RankSVM[1] and I was observing the ranking pairs listed in the example here. Formulation can be seen on page 4 of this paper.

One of the ordering is: $3B>3A, 3B>3D, 3A>3D$

My question is, if you have $3B>3A$ and $3A>3D$, the other relation: $3B>3D$ is implied. Do we have to put such relations in the training set? Will it affect accuracy if we do not put such examples in the training set?

There are other such orderings too:

$1A>1B, 1B>1C$ which implies $1A>1C$, which is still listed.

$1A>1B, 1B>1D$ which implies $1A>1D$, which is still listed.

$3C>3A, 3A>3D$ which implies $3C>3D$, which is still listed.

So this seems to be done purposely. However, are such examples redundant in the RankSVM formulation?

[1] Joachims, Thorsten. "Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data." Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 2002.