MHB Proving Equivalency Relations: Help from Henry

  • Thread starter Thread starter henry1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the relation S, defined on the set of real numbers where x S y if x - y is an integer, is an equivalence relation. It is established that S is reflexive since the difference of a number and itself is zero, symmetric because the negative of any integer is also an integer, and transitive as the sum of two integers is an integer. The second part of the problem involves showing that S is a congruence relation with respect to addition, which is demonstrated by manipulating the definitions of S for pairs of related elements. The conclusion confirms that the properties of S align with the requirements for equivalence and congruence relations.
henry1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I'm having copious amounts of trouble with this question and an amount of help would really be appreciated.

Let S be the relation on the set of real numbers defined by

x S y iff x-y is an integer

1. prove that S is an equivalence relation on R.

2. Prove that if x S x' and y S y' then (x+y) S (x'+y').

Thanks,

Henry.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you show what you have tried so far so our helpers can see where you are stuck or may be going astray?
 
My thoughts:

S is reflexive because 0 is an integer.

S is symmetric because -k is an integer whenever k is.

S is transitive, because the sum of two integers is another integer.

The second part of the problem is to show S is a congruence with respect to addition (of real numbers). This really just amounts to working through the definition of S:

Suppose x S x'. Then x - x' = k, for some integer k. Similarly, y S y' means y - y' = m, for some integer m.

Consequently:

(x + y) - (x' + y') = (x - x') + (y - y') = k + m, which is, of course, an integer.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.