Sets and Relations (just needs checking please)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Natasha1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations Sets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the properties of a relation defined on the Cartesian product of natural numbers, AxB, where the relation p is established by the condition (a,b)p(c,d) if and only if a+d = b+c. The participants confirm that (2,6) is related to (4,8) and provide examples of other related pairs. They also explore whether (2,6) is related to the general form (a, a+4) and justify this relationship. Furthermore, they analyze the equivalence relation properties of p, confirming its reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, while also addressing notational and conceptual clarifications needed for a complete proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Cartesian products in set theory
  • Familiarity with equivalence relations and their properties
  • Basic knowledge of ordered pairs and relations
  • Proficiency in logical reasoning and mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations in detail
  • Learn about Cartesian products and their applications in set theory
  • Explore examples of reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relations
  • Investigate the implications of relations in mathematical logic
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, and students studying set theory, relations, and equivalence properties, as well as anyone interested in formal logic and mathematical proofs.

Natasha1
Messages
494
Reaction score
9
Let AxB be the set of ordered pairs (a,b) where a and b belong to the set of natural numbers N.

A relation p: AxB -> AxB is defined by: (a,b)p(c,d) <-> a+d = b+c

(i) Is (2,6) related to (4,8)? Give three ordered pairs which are related to (2,6)

ANSWER:

Yes (2,6)p(4,8) as 2+8 = 6+4 = 10

(2,6)p(2,6) = 2+6 = 6+2 = 8
(2,6)p(6,10) = 2+10 = 6+6 = 12
(2,6)p(12,16) = 2+16 = 6+12 = 18

OR should it be written like this as the question stipulates ordered pairs related to (2,6) i.e. p(2,6)

(2,6)p(2,6) = 2+6 = 6+2 = 8
(6,10)p(2,6) = 6+6 = 2+10 = 12
(12,16)p(2,6) = 6+12 = 2+16 = 18

ANY SUGGESTIONS?

(ii) Is (2,6) related to (a, a+4)? Justify your answer

ANSWER

A = 2, B= 6, C= a and d = a+4

as (a,b)p(c,d) <-> a+d = b+c

Then a+d = 2+a+4 = 6+a and b+c = 6+a

Therefore a+d = b+c and (a,b)p(c,d)
Hence (2,6) is related to (a, a+4)

CORRECT, ANY IMPROVEMENT?


(iii) Prove (i.e. using general letters) that p is an equivalence relation on the set AxB

An equivalence relation on a set X is a binary relation on X that is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.

a) This set AxB is reflexive as any ordered pair is related to itself i.e. (a,b)p(a,b) <-> a+b = b+a
i.e. (2,6)p(2,6) = 2+6 = 6+2 = 8

b) This set AxB is symmetric as if we take any 2 ordered pairs (a,b), (c,d) then (a,b)p(c,d), hence a+d = b+c. And then (c,d)p(a,b), hence c+b = d+a.

i.e. (2,6)p(10, 14) we get 2+14 = 6+10 = 16
and (10,14)p(2,6) we get 6+10 = 2+14 = 16

c)This set AxB is transitive as if we take 3 ordered pairs (a,b), (c,d) and (e,f) we have (a,b)p(c,d), hence a+d = b+c and (c,d)p(e,f), then c+f = d+e, which gives (a,b)p(e,f) hence a+f = b+e

i.e. (2,6), (10,14) and (16,20)

(2,6)p(10,14) we get 2+14 = 6+10 = 16
and (10,14)p(16,20) we get 10+20 = 14+16 = 30

Then (2,6)p(16,20) we get 2+20 = 6+16 = 22

ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Natasha1 said:
c)This set AxB is transitive as if we take 3 ordered pairs (a,b), (c,d) and (e,f) we have (a,b)p(c,d), hence a+d = b+c and (c,d)p(e,f), then c+f = d+e, which gives (a,b)p(e,f) hence a+f = b+e
There doesn't seem to be a logical implication here. How do the previous lines imply the last phrase, that (a,b)p(e,f) ?
 
(i) and (ii) look good. Incidentally, ApB is read as "A is related to B". (at least when p doesn't need to be stated explicitly)


For (iii), I think you're close, but not quite there conceptually.

First off, you made a notational mistake: your goal is to prove that p is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.

Secondly, why are you saying AxB instead of NxN?

Finally, you're slightly off in how to prove this. For example, in part (b), you never proved p is symmetric. All you've said is:

(a,b) p (c,d) implies a+d=b+c
(c,d) p (a,b) implies c+b=d+a

(Actually, you also said that (a,b)p(c,d) for any two ordered pairs.)

In particular, you've not said that (a,b)p(c,d) if and only if (c,d)p(a,b), which is what you're trying to prove.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K