Answered

Get personalized answers to your unique questions on IDNLearn.com. Ask your questions and receive prompt, detailed answers from our experienced and 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 appreciate your participation in this forum. Keep exploring, asking questions, and sharing your insights with the community. Together, we can find the best solutions. Thank you for choosing IDNLearn.com. We’re dedicated to providing clear answers, so visit us again for more solutions.