Given any set A, a relation on A is a subset of AxA. Then isn't the empty set a relation also? Doesn't that make it an equivalence relation, vacuously, as well?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm asking because in a book there's a problem stating: show there are exactly 5 equivalence relations on a set with 3 elements. I get the obvious

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3)}

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,2), (2,1)}

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,3), (3,1)}

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (2,3), (3,2)}

{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,2), (2,1), (1,3), (3,1), (2,3), (3,2)} = AxA

But I think the empty set should also be included, because for example in {(1,1), (2,2), (3,3)}, symmetry and transitivity are both trivially satisfied, just as they would be in the empty set.

But I know equivalence relations correspond to partitions of the set. Then the partitions would be

{1} {2} {3}

{1,2} {3}

{1,3} {2}

{2,3} {1}

{1,2,3}

And the empty set doesn't partition A, so what should it be?

How is the empty set regarded with respect to (equivalence) relations?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Empty relation

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**