Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Equivalence relation

  1. Nov 10, 2008 #1
    Hi,

    When I was just walking through the hallway of my department I found an exercise sheet asking the student to examine the following proof.

    Assume [itex]R\subset M\times M[/itex] is a binary, symmetric, transitive relation. Then for any [itex]a,b \in M[/itex] with [itex]a\sim _R b[/itex] it follows by symmetry that [itex]b\sim _R a[/itex] and thus by transitivity that [itex]a\sim _R a[/itex] i.e. R is also reflexive and therefore an equivalence relation.


    The exercise then asks to find the flaw in this argument (and give a counter example). To me the argument makes perfect sense...I am really ashamed, after all this is for first year students:smile:
    Can someone give a hint?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2008 #2

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hi Pere Callahan! :smile:

    But why should a ~ anything?
     
  4. Nov 10, 2008 #3
    Oh, okay. Thanks tiny-tim!

    Do you think that [itex]R=\{\}\subset\{0\}^2[/itex] would be a valid counter example?
     
  5. Nov 10, 2008 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Yes, the relation defined by the empty set is trivially symmetric and transitive but not reflexive. Here's a less trivial example: let A= {a, b, c} and "~" be the relation {(b,b), (b,c), (c,b), (c,c)}. That is both symmetric and transitive but not reflexive.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Equivalence relation
  1. Equivalence relation (Replies: 6)

  2. Equivalence relation (Replies: 1)

  3. Equivalence Relations (Replies: 3)

Loading...