MHB Check if relation is equivalent

AI Thread Summary
The relation defined as \(m \sim n\) in \(\mathbb{Z}\) if \(mn > 0\) is examined for equivalence. It is determined that the relation is not reflexive because the pair \((0,0)\) does not satisfy the condition. Consequently, it cannot be classified as an equivalence relation. The conclusion is affirmed by participants in the discussion. The analysis confirms that the relation fails to meet the criteria for equivalence.
issacnewton
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
37
Hello

I have to check if the following relation is an equivalence relation.
\[m\sim n \;\;\mbox{in}\;\;\mathbb{Z}\;\;\mbox{if}\; mn > 0\]

I think this relation fails to be reflexive since $(0,0)$ does not belong to
this relation. Hence this is not an equivalent relation. Is this ok ?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IssacNewton said:
Hello

I have to check if the following relation is an equivalence relation.
\[m\sim n \;\;\mbox{in}\;\;\mathbb{Z}\;\;\mbox{if}\; mn > 0\]

I think this relation fails to be reflexive since $(0,0)$ does not belong to
this relation. Hence this is not an equivalent relation. Is this ok ?

Thanks
Yes. This is good.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Yes. This is good.

Thanks
(Emo)
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top