What Does Equivalence Relations Mean in Set Theory?

AI Thread Summary
Equivalence relations in set theory involve understanding properties like reflexivity and transitivity. A relation is reflexive if every element relates to itself, while transitivity means if (a, b) and (b, c) are in the relation, then (a, c) must also be included. The discussion clarifies that a relation must satisfy these properties as a whole, not just for individual pairs. For example, the relation R is reflexive and transitive, while R1 is not reflexive because it lacks the pair (4, 4). Understanding these definitions is crucial for grasping equivalence relations in set theory.
kingstar
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm reading a book on sets and it mentions a set B = {1,2,3,4}
and it says that
R3 = {(x, y) : x ∈ B ∧y ∈ B}
What does that mean? Does that mean every possible combination in the set?

Also the book doesn't clarify this completely but for example using the set B say i had another set

R = {(1,2),(2,3),(1,3),(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,4)},

Would this be clarified as transitive and reflexive? My question is does a set need to have all transitive properties and all the reflexive properties to be called transitive and reflexive.

If i had another set:

R1 = {(1,2),(2,3),(1,3),(1,1),(2,2),(3,3)}

In which i removed (4,4) would this set R1 still be considered reflexive?

Thanks in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your first example is a transitive and reflexive relation. A relation is transitive and reflexive if it satisfies the axioms for transitivity and reflexivity.

Your other example is not reflexive, since 4 is an element of X, but 4 ~ 4 is not satisfied.
 
My question is does a set need to have all transitive properties and all the reflexive properties to be called transitive and reflexive.
You appear to have the wrong idea about the "transitive" and "reflexive" properties. You cannot talk about "all the transitive properties" and "all the reflexive properties" because there is only one of each. We apply the term "reflexive" to the whole relation, not individual pairs. If we have a relation on set A, then it is a subset of AxA, the set of all ordered pairs with each member from set A. Such a relation is called "reflexive" if and only if, for every a in A, (a, a) is in the relation. If a particular such pair, say, (x, x), is in the relation, we do NOT call that pair "a reflexive property". Similarly, a relation is called "transitive" if and only if whenever pairs (a, b) and (b, c) are in the relation, so is (a, c). We do NOT apply the term "transitive" to the individual pairs.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Ahh, thanks! This helped me understand it a lot better
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top