-1

I am having some trouble determining if these are equivalence relations. Specifically, I am not sure if I am supposed to check for reflexiveness, symmetry and transitivity in the ordered pairs of the relation or every possible ordered pair in the set.

(a) R = {(1, 1),(1, 2),(2, 1),(2, 2),(3, 3)} on set {1, 2, 3}

(b) R = {(1, 1),(1, 2),(2, 1),(2, 2),(3, 3)} on set {1, 2, 3, 4}

(c) R = {(1, 2),(2, 3),(1, 3)} on set {1, 2, 3}

  • I think if you looked at the definitions of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity you would realise which ones are equivalence relations. Which ones do you think are? – Nika Feb 23 '20 at 19:58
  • Please ask only one question per post. – amWhy Feb 23 '20 at 19:59
  • 2
    " if I am supposed to check for reflexiveness, symmetry and transitivity in the ordered pairs of the relation or every possible ordered pair in the set" What would be the point of every possible pair? The question is about the relation, not the set. If you consider every possible pair then $(x,x)$ and $(x,y),(y,x)$ and $(a,b),(b,c),(a,c)$ will always be possible. But what do any of those have to do with the relation? – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 20:00
  • 3
    @amWhy I think it would be really silly if someone asked three separate questions for the content of this one... – Nika Feb 23 '20 at 20:01
  • @Nika If the OP showed effort on all three, or specified what they don't understand about the questions, I'd be okay. But this site is not a site for users looking for homework completion. Ideally, they should asking one question well, and then using their knowledge to answer extremely similar others on their own. This is not a "post your homework" site. – amWhy Feb 23 '20 at 20:04
  • So it seems to me that none of these are equivalence relations then? A is not symmetric because the relation is missing (2,3), (3,2), (1,3), and (3,1). B is not reflexive because it is missing (4,4). C is not reflexive because it is missing (1,1) (2,2), and (3,3) – darrenz123 Feb 23 '20 at 20:05
  • The first relation is an equivalence relation. Symmetry requires only that if $(x, y) \in R$ then $(y, x) \in R$. If there is a pair $(x, y) \notin R$, then $(y, x)$ needn't be in $R$. – amWhy Feb 23 '20 at 20:07
  • 1
    " I think it would be really silly if someone asked three separate questions for the content of this one... " It'd pointless to ask three questions either separately or as a single post when there is only one issue they need explained. – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 20:08
  • 2
    "A is not symmetric because the relation is missing (2,3), (3,2), (1,3), and (3,1)" But it doesn't need those to be symmetric. If it has $(2,3)$ then it must have $(3,2)$ and if it has $(3,2)$ it must have $(2,3)$. But it doesn't have to have either of them. – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 20:09
  • For ever single pair $(a,b)$ has it also has $(b,a)$. It has $(1,1)$ and id also has $(1,1)$. It has $(1,2)$ and it also has $(2,1)$. It has $(2,2)$ and it also has $(2,2)$ and it has $(3,3)$ and $(3,3)$. So it is symmetric. It is true is does not have $(3,1)$ but that's okay because it does not have $(1,3)$ so it doesn't need $(3,1)$.... – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 20:12
  • @fleablood If OP simply posted "I am not sure if I am supposed to check for reflexiveness, symmetry and transitivity in the ordered pairs of the relation or every possible ordered pair in the set" the question might have been closed for lacking details or clarity. I see the problems (a),(b) and (c) as extra context. Also, OP has been a member for a week, so I don't think their attempt at providing more context for their problem is "pointless". Even if it was, the advice to the OP would then be that the extra context is unnecessary, not that this post has too many questions to be addressed. – Nika Feb 23 '20 at 20:24
  • 2
    @amWhy "or specified what they don't understand about the questions". To be fair the OP said "Specifically, I am not sure if I am supposed to check for reflexiveness, symmetry and transitivity in the ordered pairs of the relation or every possible ordered pair in the set" is specifying what s/he didn't understand. Admittedly, I was perplexed as to how on earth one could think of all possible pairs, but his/her comment about symmetry when $(1,3)$ and $(3,1)$ weren't included made that clear. – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 20:31

1 Answers1

-1

To be reflexive $R$ must have all possible $(a,a)$ pairs. 1) does. 2) and 3) do not.

Symmetry. $R$ does not need all possible $(a,b);(b,a)$ pairs. But for every $(a,b)$ pair that it does have, it must have the symmetric $(b,a)$ pair. 1) has the pair $(1,2)$ so it needs $(2,1)$ to be symmetric. It does so that is fine. (And vice versa; it has $(2,1)$ so it needs $(1,2)$ which it does).

on the other hand as 1) does not have $(1,3)$ so it doesn't need $(3,1)$. (And if 1) had $(3,1)$ it would need $(1,3)$; but it doesn't have $(3,1)$ so it does not need $(1,3)$.

Of all the $(a,b)$ (where $a \ne b$) pairs that 1) has; that is $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ it must have those in reverse. And it does. So it is symmetric.

It's worth noting that if a relation $R$ didn't have any $(a,b)$ pairs it would be symmetric as it would need any $(b,a)$ pairs.

As for transitive: That means for any $(a,b)$ an $(b,c)$ that it does have it must also have $(a,b)$.

1) has $(1,2)$ and it has $(2,1)$ so it must have $(1,1)$. It does. And it has $(2,1)$ and it has $(1,2)$ is it must have $(2,2)$. It does.

In theory we need to check andy $(a,b)$ and $(b,b)$ so see if it has $(a,b)$ but .... that's trivial. It it has $(a,b)$ it has $(a,b)$ so we cshouldn't have to check those.

Now the only $(a,b),(b,c)$ pairs that 1) has are $(1,2),(2,1)$ and $(2,1),(1,2)$. So we checked those all and transitivity holds. We don't need ot check any pairs it doesn't have (such as $(1,2),(2,3)$ to see if it has $(1,3)$) as those are irrelevant.

ANyway. 1) has reflexivity because it has all $(a,b)$ for every $a$ in the set. 2) fails as it does not have $(,4,4)$. 3) fails entirely.

1) and 2)have symmetry as for all $(a,b);a\ne b$ that they have theeny have $(b,a)$. 3) fails as it has $(1,2)$ but not $(2,1)$ etc.

All three have transitivity. So 1) is the only equivalence relation.

....

==== old answer =====

If you check every possible order pair in the set, than that wouldn't tell you anything about the pairs in relation. So what would be the point?

Also as $(x,x)$ is always a possible pair the the set of possible pairs will always be reflexive and as $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ will always be possible the set of all possible pairs will be symmetric and similarly transitive.

But we should we care about what could possibly happen when you are concerned only with what does happen in $R$?

1) is reflexive because they have all possible $(a,a)$ pairs namely $(1,1)$ and $(2,2)$ and $(3,3)$ but 2) and 3) is not because 2) doesn't have $(4,4)$ and 3) has none of $(1,1),(2,2)$ or $(3,3)$. doesn't have any of them. (And what do where care that they are possible if they are not actually in $R$?)

====added later====

In reading you comments I see you are confused about symmetry. And now I understand why you asked about possible pairs which didn't make any sense to me at first but now I can understand your confusion.

To be symmetric then for every pair $(a,b)$ that the set does have then the set must also have $(b,a)$. But it doesn't need to have either $(a,b)$ or $(b,a)$ in the first place.

To be symmetric it must have both, OR it could have neither.

1) as $(1,2)$ so to be symmetric it must have $(2,1)$. ANd it does. But since it doesn't have $(1,3)$ it doesn't have to have (in fact it can't have) $(3,1)$.

For the pairs it does have $(\color{red} 1,\color{blue}1), (\color{red}2,\color{blue}1), (\color{red} 1,\color{blue}2), (\color{red}2,\color{blue}2),(\color{red}3, \color{blue}3)$ to be symmetric it must contain the symmetric pairs: $(\color{blue}1, \color{red} 1), (\color{blue}1,\color{red}2), (\color{blue}2,\color{red} 1), (\color{blue}2,\color{red}2),(\color{blue}3,\color{red}3)$... which it does.

Notice that any $(a,a)$ is always symmetric to itself so we don't actually have to check them. The only ones we need to check are $(a,b)$ where $a\ne b$.

In the case of 1) we have $(1,2)$ so we need $(2,1)$ and we have it. And we have $(2,1)$ and so we need $(1,2)$ and we have it.

fleablood
  • 124,253
  • 1
    I'm not answering the question. I am addressing the op's concern and questions. The ope didn't express any concern about transitivity. The op was concerned about whether to consider possible pairs. – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 20:36
  • But you did just answer the question!! An hour after your initial comments. – amWhy Feb 23 '20 at 21:05
  • 2
    I thought you said you weren't going to follow this. Go away. – fleablood Feb 23 '20 at 21:05
  • I followed to watch your multiple attempts to comment on the answer, and only after I deleted my answer(s) in comments, did you bother to fully answer. Not often does one get multiple attempts to answer a question, particularly when every point you made in your second and third major edit was already made in comments. Glad to have motivate you to improve your "answer", even if I had to answer first. – amWhy Feb 23 '20 at 21:07