Please help - Binary Relations driving me utterly insane

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathmos6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Binary Relations
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the properties of binary relations, specifically equivalence relations R and S on a set A. The conditions established are that R ◦ S is symmetric, transitive, and the smallest equivalence relation containing both R and S. The user successfully proved that (i) implies (ii) and (i) is equivalent to (iii), while struggling with proving (ii) implies (i). Ultimately, the user resolved their confusion regarding the relationship between these properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of equivalence relations in set theory
  • Familiarity with binary operations on sets
  • Knowledge of symmetric and transitive properties
  • Ability to construct and interpret mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations in depth
  • Learn about binary operations and their implications in set theory
  • Explore proof techniques for establishing equivalence in mathematical logic
  • Investigate examples of symmetric and transitive relations in various contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone studying set theory or binary relations, particularly those grappling with equivalence relations and their properties.

Mathmos6
Messages
76
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If R and S are two equivalence relations on the same set A, we define R ◦ S =
{(x, z ) ∈ A × A : there exists y ∈ A such that (x, y) ∈ R and (y, z ) ∈ S }.

Show that the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) R ◦ S is a symmetric relation on A ;
(ii) R ◦ S is a transitive relation on A ;
(iii) S ◦ R ⊆ R ◦ S ;
(iv) R ◦ S is the unique smallest equivalence relation on A containing both R and S .

The Attempt at a Solution



I've spent literally hours trying to solve this and my brain is leaking out my ears now :( I've managed to prove (i -think-) that (i)=>(ii), and that (i)<=>(iii), but I can't see any way whatsoever to show (ii)=>(i), and I've managed to show that R ◦ S contains both R and S for (iv) but I don't know how to show that if it's the smallest such relation (iv)<=>(i) or (ii) or (iii).

Please help! I'm quite a way out of my depth - (ii)=>(i) is the most frustrating bit, because I'm sure it's probably really obvious but I just can't seem to get it out! :(
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Never mind, got it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K