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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether a given relation R on a set A is an identity relation. The context includes definitions of identity relations and the properties required for a relation to qualify as such.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the identity relation on set A as the set of pairs where each element is related to itself, specifically stating I(A) = { | x ∈ A}.
  • Another participant argues that R cannot be an identity relation because it does not include the pair (3,3), which is necessary since 3 is an element of A.
  • A later reply suggests that while R does not meet the criteria for being an identity relation, an expanded relation R including (3,3) would satisfy the definition.
  • One participant acknowledges understanding after the clarification regarding the requirements for an identity relation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on whether R is an identity relation, with some asserting it is not due to missing pairs, while others reflect on the implications of the definition provided.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of including all necessary pairs in a relation to meet the definition of an identity relation, but does not resolve the broader implications of reflexivity in relation definitions.

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 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K