We know that a relation is called an Equivalence Relation when it is reflexive, symmetric AND transitive on some set A. Let’s look at some examples.
Example One: Let
Suppose we have that a is related to b (i.e. a ~ b) if
We want to show that our relation ~ is an equivalence relation.
First, let’s unpack what the question requires us to prove: It wants us to show that the relation ~ on set A is an equivalence relation. Hence, we need to show that ~ is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
The relation ~ (in this case) is defined as follows: IF any two real numbers, a and b, are related THEN we know that a – b is some integer.
It’s important to note that the order in which a relation is important! Always write your equations as they’ve been given in the question to avoid confusion and mistakes
Ok, let’s prove this.
Show reflexive property:
Since holds for all
then we can contently conclude that ~ is reflexive. For instance,
Show symmetry property:
Let such that a ~ b.
To show that ~ is symmetric, we need to show that b ~ a. We know that this means
since that is how our relation is defined in the question.
Since we have a ~ b, then by the definition of our relation (as stated in the question), we know a – b is some integer value. Let’s label it w.
So we have For instance,
But which is also an integer. So
is also an integer (i.e. b ~ a). This is what we wanted to prove!
So ~ is symmetric.
Show transitive property:
Let such that a ~ b and b ~ c.
We need to show that ~ is transitive. To show a ~ c, we need to show that a – c is an integer.
We know that a ~ b, so and b ~ c means
We know we can add integers, so when we add
This is what we wanted because implies a ~ c! Hence we can happily conclude that ~ is transitive!
Since ~ is reflexive, symmetric and transitive on A, then ~ is an equivalence relation on A!
Note: Plugging in values is usually useful when you’re trying to find counter-examples to disprove a statement.
Example Two: Let
Show that the relation
on the set Z is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
The first question we ask ourselves is, what are we required to prove? We must show that the relation on set Z is an equivalence relation.
The relation (in this case) is defined as follows: IF any two natural numbers, a and b, are related THEN we know that n| (a – b). We write, IF THEN
In this case, the integer n is some fixed value – although unknown. In other words, we can think n =10 for the entire question, and only values of a and b can change.
Note n|(a – b) means ” n divides (a – b),” so we can find some integer k such that “nk = a – b.”
Show reflexive property:
Take integer a. Since a – a = 0, and for any integer n|0 holds true since n|0 = 0 Hence,
so the relation is reflexive.
Show symmetry property:
Let a and b be integers. Suppose
We need to show
Hence we need to show that n|(b-a), i.e. we need to find proof that there exists at least one integer such that n|(b-a) holds.
Since means n|(b-a), then there exists some integer k such that nk = a – b.
By multiplying all the integers by -1, we get -nk = b – a.
In other words, there exists some integer (namely -k, or -10) such that n|(b-a). So we showed that the relation is symmetric and we can write
Show transitive property:
Let a, b and c be integers. Suppose
We need to show that
In other words, there exists some integer such that n| (a-c).
Since then we have n|(b − a) and n|(c − b). So we can find integers r and t for which b-a = nr and c-b = nt.
Adding these two equations, we obtain (c-b)+(b-a) = c + (-b + b) -a = c + 0 -a = c – a on the left side and the right side gives us nr + nt = n(r+t)
So we have c-a = n(r+t). We know r+t is the sum of two integers, so . So we conclude n| (c-a), meaning
is transitive.
This completes the proof that ≡ is an equivalence relation.
[…] Previous Next […]