Answered

Find expert answers and community-driven knowledge on IDNLearn.com. Ask anything and get well-informed, reliable answers from our knowledgeable community members.

The following argument claims to prove that the requirement that an equivalence relation be reflexive is redundant. In other words, it claims to show that if a relation is symmetric and transitive, then it is reflexive. Find the mistake in the argument.

Proof: Let R be a relation on a set A and suppose R is symmetric and transitive. For any two elements, x and y in A, if x R y, then y R x since R is symmetric. But then it follows by transitivity that x R x. Hence R is reflexive.

Sagot :

Aalsuraimi6idn

Answer:

2

If R is a relation that is transitive and symmetric, then R is reflexive on dom(R)={a∣(∃b)aRb}: if a∈dom(R), then there is b such that aRb, thus bRa by symmetry, so aRa by transitivity.

Note that if R is symmetric, then dom(R)=range(R)={b∣(∃a)aRb}.

Hence, to get an example of a relation R on a set A that is transitive and symmetric but not reflexive (on A), there has to be some a∈A which is not R-related to any b∈A. There are many examples of this:

A={0,1} and R={(0,0)},

not reflexive on A because (1,1)∉R,

A={0,1,2} and R={(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(1,1)},

not reflexive on A because (2,2)∉R.

Step-by-step explanation:

We value your presence here. Keep sharing knowledge and helping others find the answers they need. This community is the perfect place to learn together. Thank you for trusting IDNLearn.com with your questions. Visit us again for clear, concise, and accurate answers.