Is R an Identity Relation on A?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter oriel1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity Relation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on whether the relation R = {<1,1>, <2,2>} qualifies as an identity relation on the set A = {1, 2, 3}. An identity relation is defined as I(A) = {(x,x) | x ∈ A}, which includes the pairs (1,1), (2,2), and (3,3). Since R does not include the pair (3,3), it fails to meet the criteria for being an identity relation. The conclusion is that R is not an identity relation on A due to its failure to include all necessary reflexive pairs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and relations
  • Familiarity with the concept of identity relations
  • Knowledge of reflexive properties in mathematics
  • Basic comprehension of logical notation and quantifiers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations in depth
  • Learn about reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity in relations
  • Explore examples of identity relations in different mathematical contexts
  • Investigate the implications of missing elements in set relations
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying set theory and relations, educators teaching these concepts, and anyone interested in understanding the properties of identity relations.

oriel1
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Let A= {1,2,3}.
Let R= {<1,1>,<2,2>}.

I(A) (Identity Realtion) on A >(def)> {<x,x>|x $$\in$$ A}
So that mean : $$\forall$$ <x,x> x $$\in$$ A
(That how I understood it)

My question:
Is R is identity relation on A ?

Thank you !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Think about (3,3).
 
Deveno said:
No. Think about (3,3).
Ok Actually R={<1,1>,<2,2>,<3,3>} is identity relation on A for sure.
But what prevent from R= {<1,1>,<2,2>} to bo identity on A?
It not writed $$\forall$$ x $$\in$$ A.
 
The definition (yours, not mine) says:

$I(A) = \{(x,x)\mid x \in A\}$.

However, $3 \in A = \{1,2,3\}$, but $(3,3) \not\in R$.

That is, $(3,3)$ is a pair with $3 \in A$, and thus $(3,3)$ fulfills the requirements to be an element of $I(A)$. Most texts define the identity relation as the smallest possible equivalence relation on a given set, and your relation fails the reflexive test.
 
Thank you. now i understand it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K