0

Consider $\langle\Bbb{Z}_6, +_6\rangle$. Let $a\sim b$ if and only if $\{a,b\}$ generates $\langle\Bbb{Z}_6, +_6\rangle$. $a,b \in \Bbb{Z}_6$. Is $\sim$ an equivalence relation?

I know an equivalence relation must have the properties of being reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. I believe the relation described above fails transitivity. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Michael Hardy
  • 1
user123652
  • 235
  • It does fail transitivity, but it even fails reflexivity.... – Greg Martin Oct 14 '14 at 21:22
  • 1
    TeX remarks: use \langle and \rangle ($\langle$ and $\rangle$) instead of less-than and greater-than ($<$ and $>$) for better spacing of these delimiters; and use \in $\in$ instead of \epsilon ($\epsilon$) for the set-membership relation. – Greg Martin Oct 14 '14 at 21:22
  • I changed $<\bullet,\bullet>$ to $\langle\bullet,\bullet\rangle$, $a$~$b$ to $a\sim b$, $a,b,\epsilon,\bullet$ to $a,b\in\bullet$, and {$a,b$} to ${a,b}$. All of that is standard usage. ${}\qquad{}$ – Michael Hardy Oct 14 '14 at 21:32

1 Answers1

1

It is not an equivalence relation. In fact, it is not (even) reflexive, since $\{2,2\}$ does not generate $\mathbb{Z}/6$. It also fails one of the other two properties of an equivalence relation (which one?)

rogerl
  • 22,399