What Does Equivalence Relations Mean in Set Theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of equivalence relations in set theory, specifically focusing on the definitions and properties of reflexivity and transitivity. Participants explore examples of relations defined on a set and question the conditions under which these properties hold.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the meaning of a relation defined as R3 = {(x, y) : x ∈ B ∧ y ∈ B} and whether it represents every possible combination in set B.
  • Another participant asserts that the relation R is both transitive and reflexive, provided it meets the axioms for these properties.
  • There is a challenge regarding whether a set must exhibit all transitive and reflexive properties to be classified as such, with one participant clarifying that these terms apply to the entire relation rather than individual pairs.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the reflexivity of R1 after removing the pair (4,4), prompting further clarification on the definition of reflexivity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions of reflexivity and transitivity, but there is some confusion regarding the application of these properties to specific relations, indicating a lack of consensus on the nuances of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of reflexivity and transitivity, particularly in relation to specific examples provided.

kingstar
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm reading a book on sets and it mentions a set B = {1,2,3,4}
and it says that
R3 = {(x, y) : x ∈ B ∧y ∈ B}
What does that mean? Does that mean every possible combination in the set?

Also the book doesn't clarify this completely but for example using the set B say i had another set

R = {(1,2),(2,3),(1,3),(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,4)},

Would this be clarified as transitive and reflexive? My question is does a set need to have all transitive properties and all the reflexive properties to be called transitive and reflexive.

If i had another set:

R1 = {(1,2),(2,3),(1,3),(1,1),(2,2),(3,3)}

In which i removed (4,4) would this set R1 still be considered reflexive?

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first example is a transitive and reflexive relation. A relation is transitive and reflexive if it satisfies the axioms for transitivity and reflexivity.

Your other example is not reflexive, since 4 is an element of X, but 4 ~ 4 is not satisfied.
 
My question is does a set need to have all transitive properties and all the reflexive properties to be called transitive and reflexive.
You appear to have the wrong idea about the "transitive" and "reflexive" properties. You cannot talk about "all the transitive properties" and "all the reflexive properties" because there is only one of each. We apply the term "reflexive" to the whole relation, not individual pairs. If we have a relation on set A, then it is a subset of AxA, the set of all ordered pairs with each member from set A. Such a relation is called "reflexive" if and only if, for every a in A, (a, a) is in the relation. If a particular such pair, say, (x, x), is in the relation, we do NOT call that pair "a reflexive property". Similarly, a relation is called "transitive" if and only if whenever pairs (a, b) and (b, c) are in the relation, so is (a, c). We do NOT apply the term "transitive" to the individual pairs.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ahh, thanks! This helped me understand it a lot better
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K