Equivalence Relation: Proving Properties on a Set S

In summary, an equivalence relation is a relation between elements of a set that satisfies three properties: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. To prove that a relation is an equivalence relation, one must show that it satisfies these three properties. Equivalence relations are important in mathematics and computer science. To prove properties of an equivalence relation on a set S, one must first show that the relation is indeed an equivalence relation and then use logical arguments or mathematical proofs. An equivalence relation can have multiple properties, and the more properties it satisfies, the stronger and more useful it is.
  • #1
gtfitzpatrick
379
0
let the relation [tex]\propto[/tex] on a set S have the properties
(i) a [tex]\propto[/tex] a for every a [tex]\in[/tex] S
(II) if a [tex]\propto[/tex] b and b [tex]\propto[/tex] c then c [tex]\propto[/tex] a

show that [tex]\propto[/tex] is an equivalence relation on S.
Does every equivalence relation on S satisfy (i) and (ii)

I'm not sure where to start this i know
(i) is the reflexive property and (ii) is the Transitive property.
Im not sure where to go or how to tackle this,some pointers would be greatly appreciated
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Presumably you know what an equivalence relation is! (If not, this is an extremely difficult question!:smile:)

A relation, R, is an equivalence relation on a set if and only if it satisfies:
1) aRa for for all a in the set. (reflexive)
2) if aRb and bRc then aRc. (transitive)
3) if aRb then bRa. (symmetric)

You are given that this relation, [tex]\propto[/tex], is reflexive and symmetric so all you need to do is show that if (1) and (2) are true then (3) is true. Frankly, I see a problem with that. That, as stated, is NOT true. It should be easy for you to write down a relation on {a, b, c} that is both reflexive and transitive but not symmetric.
 
  • #3
Actually, you aren't given that it is transitive. The statement in the question is that

aRb & bRc implies that cRa NOT that aRc.

It is straight forward to show, with a propitious choice of c, that this implies symmetry which then implies...
 
  • #4
ah yes i see now, he threw that trick in and i didn't notice,thanks a million
 
  • #5
so we need to show it holds true for the 3 properties refexive,symmetric and Transitive. We are given that it is reflexive. a [tex]\propto[/tex] a it follows that b [tex]\propto[/tex] b therefore from (ii) a [tex]\propto[/tex] b and b[tex]\propto[/tex] c and b [tex]\propto[/tex] b we get a [tex]\propto[/tex] c which implies it is Transitive but also since a [tex]\propto[/tex] c and c [tex]\propto[/tex] a which implies it is symmetric

?

every equivalence relation on S satisfies (i) and (ii) because in order for it to be an equivalence relation it has to satisfy the 3 properties of Reflexive,Symmetric and Transitive and if it holds true for these 3 properties it holds true for (i) and (ii)

?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
You're given it is reflexive.

To show it's symmetric, you need to find a and b such that the given rules can be used to deduce that if a R b then b R a. *HINT*: a R a, and if a R b and b R c then c R a, so... what if b is a?

To show it's transitive then, well, you have to show that if a R b and b R c then a R c... but you already know c R a is true, right? And it's reflexive?

If you show reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, then you're done. Nothing else is required... except, perhaps, to show it's a binary relation, but I think that's extraneous to the discussion.
 
  • #7
gtfitzpatrick said:
We are given that it is reflexive. a [tex]\propto[/tex] a it follows that b [tex]\propto[/tex] b therefore from (ii) a [tex]\propto[/tex] b and b[tex]\propto[/tex] c and b [tex]\propto[/tex] b we get a [tex]\propto[/tex] c which implies it is Transitive but also since a [tex]\propto[/tex] c and c [tex]\propto[/tex] a which implies it is symmetric

Sorry, for this but is that not what I am showing aRa it follow bRb...etc but then i show its transitive and from there also symmetric. Do i need to show its symmetric first? Sorry if this is silly question and thanks for the help
 
  • #8
No, you can show it in either order. I just happen to have seen it the other way around first. In theory, if you can show it one way and then the other, it doesn't matter which order you choose.
 

FAQ: Equivalence Relation: Proving Properties on a Set S

1) What is an equivalence relation?

An equivalence relation is a relation between elements of a set that satisfies three properties: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. This means that for any elements a, b, and c in the set, a is related to itself (reflexivity), if a is related to b then b is related to a (symmetry), and if a is related to b and b is related to c, then a is related to c (transitivity).

2) How do you prove that a relation is an equivalence relation?

To prove that a relation is an equivalence relation, you must show that it satisfies the three properties: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. This can be done by providing examples that demonstrate these properties or by using logical arguments to show that they hold for all elements in the set.

3) What is the importance of equivalence relations?

Equivalence relations are important in mathematics because they allow us to group elements together based on a certain criteria, and then make statements about the entire group. This can simplify problems and make them more manageable. Equivalence relations are also used in many areas of computer science, including database design and programming.

4) How do you prove properties of an equivalence relation on a set S?

To prove properties of an equivalence relation on a set S, you must first show that the relation is indeed an equivalence relation. Once this is established, you can use logical arguments or mathematical proofs to show that the desired property holds for all elements in the set. It is also helpful to provide examples to illustrate the property.

5) Can an equivalence relation have multiple properties?

Yes, an equivalence relation can have multiple properties. In fact, the more properties a relation satisfies, the stronger and more useful it is. For example, a relation that is reflexive, symmetric, transitive, and also satisfies the property of being antisymmetric is called a partial order. So, depending on the properties that are satisfied, an equivalence relation can have different names and uses.

Similar threads

Back
Top