MHB Proving an Equivalence Relation on Real Numbers

barbara
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I know that
1. To show the relation is reflexive, we need to show that for any x, using the definition of R, we have xRx. The definition of R means that we must have |x - x| is even.2. To show that R is symmetric, we would have to show that if xRy then yRx. In the context of the definition we would need to show that if |x - y| is even, then |y - x| is even.3. Show that R is transitive, we need to show that if |x-y| is even and |y-z| is even, then |x - z| is even. This part is probably the hardest to work through.

But what I can't do is look at this in the context of this specific example. I am totally lost trying to define the following relation on the set of real numbers

xRy if |x - y| is an even integer and how that R is an equivalence relation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any relation that is reflexive, symmetric and transitive is *by definition* an equivalence relation.

Ok, so suppose $|x - y|$ is even. What is an even integer? It is one divisible by $2$, so we can write:

$|x - y| = 2k$, where $k$ is an integer (we don't actually need to know *which* integer $k$ is, just that there is one).

Now, for $xRy \iff |x - y| = 2k$ (for some integer $k$), we ask ourselves: is it also true that for any such pair $(x,y)$ that:

$|y - x| = 2k'$ (we don't know that $k'$ is the same as $k$-it might be, it might not be).

Let's break it down into cases:

Case 1: $x > y$.

In this case,$ x - y > 0$, so $|x - y| = x - y$.

Now, when we look at $|y - x|$, we see that $y - x < 0$, so (by the definition of absolute value):

$|y - x| = -(y - x) = -y -(-x) = -y + x = x - y$. Since (by assumption of $xRy$) $|x - y| = 2k$, we see that:

$|y - x| = x - y = |x - y| = 2k$, as well, so this, too, is an even integer, just like $|x - y|$ is. That settles the case $x > y$.

Case 2: $x = y$. In this case, $|x - y| = |x - x| = |0| = 0$. This is, of course, an even integer, since $0 = 2\cdot 0$.

In this case, we also have $|y - x| = |y - y| = 0$, as well, so in this case, too, we see $R$ is symmetric.

Case 3: left to you.

A "faster" way to show that $R$ is symmetric is to observe that $|x - y| = |y - x|$ (Do you believe this? Can you prove it?).

Try to work through just this "symmetric" bit, when you're convinced in your heart-of-hearts that this relation really and truly IS symmetric, we'll move on to transitivity.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top