Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Math Help - Show that this is an equivalence relation

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1

    [Solved]Show that this is an equivalence relation

    Hi!

    I have given av relation ~ by \mathbb{N}^2 where:
    (n,m) ~ (k,l) <=> n+l = m+k

    How would you show that ~ is an equivalence relation?

    Need something to get me started, though I understand the relation, not just "how" to prove it.
    In other words, show that the realtion is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
    Reflexive a \mathcal{R} a
    Symmetric a \mathcal{R} b \implies b \mathcal{R} a
    Transative if a \mathcal{R} b \mbox{ and } b \mathcal{R}c \implies a \mathcal{R}c

    Thanks in advance for any help/tips!
    Last edited by jokke22; April 26th 2009 at 12:35 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,391
    Thanks
    1476
    Awards
    1
    Here are the three:
    \begin{gathered}<br />
  x + y = y + x \hfill \\<br />
  a + d = b + c\, \Leftrightarrow \,c + b = d + a \hfill \\<br />
  a + d = b + c\,\& \,c + f = d + e\, \Leftrightarrow \,a + f = b + e \hfill \\ <br />
\end{gathered}

    Fill in details.
    Last edited by Plato; April 26th 2009 at 12:12 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Here are the three:
    \begin{gathered}<br />
  x + y = y + x \hfill \\<br />
  a + d = b + c\, \Leftrightarrow \,c + b = d + a \hfill \\<br />
  a + d = b + c\,\& \,c + f = d + e\, \Leftrightarrow \,a + f = b + e \hfill \\ <br />
\end{gathered}

    Fill in details.
    Thank you for your reply!

    So I could rewrite this as:

    "Edited for new approach..."
    Last edited by Plato; April 26th 2009 at 12:12 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Hmmm... I can't seem to get it...

    Could you elaborate a tiny bit...? :P
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by jokke22 View Post
    Hmmm... I can't seem to get it...

    Could you elaborate a tiny bit...? :P
    what do you need elaborated? Plato listed why the relation fulfills the three properties. the first equation shows reflexivity, the second set show symmetry, and the third, transitivity
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    what do you need elaborated? Plato listed why the relation fulfills the three properties. the first equation shows reflexivity, the second set show symmetry, and the third, transitivity
    It's getting late over here... I just didn't see the connection at first!

    Thank you yet again!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    70
    For REFLEXIVE:

    Suppose aRa --> (n,m) R (n,m)
    Then n + m = m + n

    n + m = n + m

    ((n+ m) = (n +m)) / (n+m) Divide both sides by n+m

    1 = 1

    Therefore, R is reflexive
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by spearfish View Post
    For REFLEXIVE:

    Suppose aRa --> (n,m) R (n,m)
    Then n + m = m + n

    n + m = n + m

    ((n+ m) = (n +m)) / (n+m) Divide both sides by n+m

    1 = 1

    Therefore, R is reflexive
    *sigh*, no, for reflexive, you need to show that (n,m) R (n,m) (that is, all points relate to themselves under this relation). Since n + m = m + n (by the commutativity of addition on the integers), we have reflexivity.

    now do the others.

    it's getting really late there, huh? Plato did most of the work for you, you only need to explain his equations. don't try to make new ones
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Just to get this right, as its not given any values and on how the relation stands, the answer Plato has given is the "general" solution to all similar relations to mine?

    First timer on this subject, pain with some new terms etc.

    Haha! Going past 11pm now... Could be that I just suck really bad at this subject as well ;-)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    70
    I think you were referring to jokke22, lol. I was just helping. Anyways, here are the others:

    SYMMETRIC:
    Suppose (n,m)R(k,l)
    Then n + l = m +k
    n = m + k -l

    Suppose (k,l) R (n,m)
    Then k + m = l + n
    k + m = l + (m+k-l)
    k+ m = m+ k

    Therefore, R is Symmetric

    TRANSITIVE: a = (n,m), b = (k,l), c = (o,p)
    Suppose (n,m)R(k,l)
    Then n + l = m + k
    l = m + k - n

    Suppose (k,l)R(o,p)
    Then k + p = l + o
    k + p = (m + k-n) +o
    k -k + p = m -n + o
    p + n = m + o
    aRc -->(n,m)R(o,p)
    Therefore, R is Transitive
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by spearfish View Post
    I think you were referring to jokke22, lol. I was just helping. Anyways, here are the others:

    SYMMETRIC:
    Suppose (n,m)R(k,l)
    Then n + l = m +k
    n = m + k -l

    Suppose (k,l) R (n,m)
    Then k + m = l + n
    k + m = l + (m+k-l)
    k+ m = m+ k

    Therefore, R is Symmetric

    TRANSITIVE: a = (n,m), b = (k,l), c = (o,p)
    Suppose (n,m)R(k,l)
    Then n + l = m + k
    l = m + k - n

    Suppose (k,l)R(o,p)
    Then k + p = l + o
    k + p = (m + k-n) +o
    k -k + p = m -n + o
    p + n = m + o
    aRc -->(n,m)R(o,p)
    Therefore, R is Transitive

    I just see a whole bunch of letters now...

    I will look everything over tomorrow and see if I get this!

    Thank you though! Appriciate all the help I can get! Kudos to all the math geniuses here!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    To continue, how is this proof actually set;

    Function is defined as followed:
    ⊕: \mathbb{N}^2 * \mathbb{N}\Rightarrow\mathbb{N}
    by
    (n,m) (k,l) = (n+k, m+l)

    Show that,
    (n,m)~ (n_1,m_1) and (k,l) ~ (k_1,l_1)
    then
    (n,m) (k,l) ~ (n_1,m_1) (k_1,l_1)


    Finding it hard to "prove", though I understand it to some level.

    Hmmm...
    Will post if I find a reasonable answer, so any pointers would be greatly appriciated!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Senior Member Danneedshelp's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    303
    Let (n,m),(k,l),and (x,y) be arbitrary elements of N^2. Now, suppose (n,m)~(k,l) and (k,l)~(x,y). By our definition this implies n+l=m+k and k+y=l+x. So, n+l=m+k=k+y=l+x ⇒ n=m=y=x ⇒ n+m=x+y. So, (n,m)~(x,y). Therefore, we have shown the relation ~ is transitive.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Danneedshelp View Post
    Let (n,m),(k,l),and (x,y) be arbitrary elements of N^2. Now, suppose (n,m)~(k,l) and (k,l)~(x,y). By our definition this implies n+l=m+k and k+y=l+x. So, n+l=m+k=k+y=l+x ⇒ n=m=y=x ⇒ n+m=x+y. So, (n,m)~(x,y). Therefore, we have shown the relation ~ is transitive.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    74
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Danneedshelp View Post
    Let (n,m),(k,l),and (x,y) be arbitrary elements of N^2. Now, suppose (n,m)~(k,l) and (k,l)~(x,y). By our definition this implies n+l=m+k and k+y=l+x. So, n+l=m+k=k+y=l+x ⇒ n=m=y=x ⇒ n+m=x+y. So, (n,m)~(x,y). Therefore, we have shown the relation ~ is transitive.
    This shows that this ~ relation is transitive...or?

    Confused here...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 6th 2011, 11:46 PM
  2. Show Equivalence Relation
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 19th 2010, 08:51 AM
  3. Show that R is an equivalence relation
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 21st 2010, 11:43 AM
  4. Equivalence relation and order of each equivalence class
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 30th 2009, 09:03 AM
  5. Equivalence relation and Equivalence classes?
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 7th 2009, 03:39 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum