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)
 

Thread 'Value of intuitionistic logic'

I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
View full post »

Thread 'Formal derivation of statement from Peano Arithmetic system'

I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
View full post »

Similar threads

MHB Equivalence Relations: Solving & Proving Reflexivity, Symmetry & Transitivity
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Show that ~ is an equivalence relation
Replies
2
Views
2K
MHB Equivalence Classes: Solving Cbarker1's Problem
Replies
1
Views
2K
MHB Different Number of Equivalence Relations
Replies
4
Views
4K
MHB Can you explain how the law of logic was used to reach this conclusion?
Replies
3
Views
3K
MHB Help with an Equivalence Relation?
Replies
3
Views
3K
MHB Upper Bound of Sets and Sequences: Analyzing Logic
Replies
3
Views
5K
MHB An Equivalence Relation with Cauchy Sequences
Replies
2
Views
1K
MHB Problem understanding relations syntax.
Replies
1
Views
1K
MHB Binary Relations and Equivalence Classes | Proving R is an Equivalence Relation
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top