Error in proving a relation transitiveEquivalence Relation problemNeed help understanding transitive relationsProving TransitivityDoes (f(0)=g(0) or f(1)=g(1)) define a transitive relation on function?Restriction to equivalence relation is equivalence relationProving transitivity of a relationLet a relation on $mathbbZ$ , check if reflexive, symmetrical, transitive, antisymmetrical, of order, of equivalence.Empty closure of relationTrue or false? This relation is an equivalence relation: $xRy Leftrightarrow x cdot y$ is evenProve that a relation is ordering relation
Why didn't Voldemort know what Grindelwald looked like?
Put the phone down / Put down the phone
Why would five hundred and five same as one?
Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?
Can you take a "free object interaction" while incapacitated?
"Marked down as someone wanting to sell shares." What does that mean?
Should a narrator ever describe things based on a character's view instead of facts?
How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?
How do you say "Trust your struggle." in French?
If the Dominion rule using their Jem'Hadar troops, why is their life expectancy so low?
Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?
categorizing a variable turns it from insignificant to significant
Does capillary rise violate hydrostatic paradox?
Is there a distance limit for minecart tracks?
Why is "la Gestapo" feminine?
Started in 1987 vs. Starting in 1987
Sort with assumptions
Is this saw blade faulty?
What do the positive and negative (+/-) transmit and receive pins mean on Ethernet cables?
Strange behavior in TikZ draw command
How to test the sharpness of a knife?
Can a Knock spell open the door to Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?
Taking the numerator and the denominator
Hashing password to increase entropy
Error in proving a relation transitive
Equivalence Relation problemNeed help understanding transitive relationsProving TransitivityDoes (f(0)=g(0) or f(1)=g(1)) define a transitive relation on function?Restriction to equivalence relation is equivalence relationProving transitivity of a relationLet a relation on $mathbbZ$ , check if reflexive, symmetrical, transitive, antisymmetrical, of order, of equivalence.Empty closure of relationTrue or false? This relation is an equivalence relation: $xRy Leftrightarrow x cdot y$ is evenProve that a relation is ordering relation
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Let $R$ be the relation on $mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$ defined by $(p,q)R(s,t)iff pt=qs$.
Show that $R$ is an equivalence relation.$\$
I disagreed with his proof of transitivity, which was:$\\$
Let $A=mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$. Suppose that $(p,q), (s,t), (x,y)in A$ satisfy $(p,q)R(s,t)$ and $(s,t)R(x,y)$ (thus $q,t,yne 0)$. Hence $pt=qs$ and $sy=tx$. Using $yne 0$, we can get $s=frac txy$. Substituting this into $pt=qs$, we obtain that $pt=qfractxy$. Since $tne 0$ we may multiply both sides by $fracyt$ and derive that $py=qz$, which implies that $(p,q)R(x,y)$.
Homework Problem
elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Let $R$ be the relation on $mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$ defined by $(p,q)R(s,t)iff pt=qs$.
Show that $R$ is an equivalence relation.$\$
I disagreed with his proof of transitivity, which was:$\\$
Let $A=mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$. Suppose that $(p,q), (s,t), (x,y)in A$ satisfy $(p,q)R(s,t)$ and $(s,t)R(x,y)$ (thus $q,t,yne 0)$. Hence $pt=qs$ and $sy=tx$. Using $yne 0$, we can get $s=frac txy$. Substituting this into $pt=qs$, we obtain that $pt=qfractxy$. Since $tne 0$ we may multiply both sides by $fracyt$ and derive that $py=qz$, which implies that $(p,q)R(x,y)$.
Homework Problem
elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Would you show us your way of proving?
$endgroup$
– Vinyl_cape_jawa
Mar 13 at 18:09
$begingroup$
Would you show us the problem? I don't want to open image
$endgroup$
– enedil
Mar 13 at 18:13
$begingroup$
Ok, I updated with the part of the proof I disagreed with, the transitivity proof.
$endgroup$
– Nate MacGregor
Mar 13 at 18:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Let $R$ be the relation on $mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$ defined by $(p,q)R(s,t)iff pt=qs$.
Show that $R$ is an equivalence relation.$\$
I disagreed with his proof of transitivity, which was:$\\$
Let $A=mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$. Suppose that $(p,q), (s,t), (x,y)in A$ satisfy $(p,q)R(s,t)$ and $(s,t)R(x,y)$ (thus $q,t,yne 0)$. Hence $pt=qs$ and $sy=tx$. Using $yne 0$, we can get $s=frac txy$. Substituting this into $pt=qs$, we obtain that $pt=qfractxy$. Since $tne 0$ we may multiply both sides by $fracyt$ and derive that $py=qz$, which implies that $(p,q)R(x,y)$.
Homework Problem
elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations
New contributor
$endgroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Let $R$ be the relation on $mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$ defined by $(p,q)R(s,t)iff pt=qs$.
Show that $R$ is an equivalence relation.$\$
I disagreed with his proof of transitivity, which was:$\\$
Let $A=mathbbZtimes(mathbbZ-0)$. Suppose that $(p,q), (s,t), (x,y)in A$ satisfy $(p,q)R(s,t)$ and $(s,t)R(x,y)$ (thus $q,t,yne 0)$. Hence $pt=qs$ and $sy=tx$. Using $yne 0$, we can get $s=frac txy$. Substituting this into $pt=qs$, we obtain that $pt=qfractxy$. Since $tne 0$ we may multiply both sides by $fracyt$ and derive that $py=qz$, which implies that $(p,q)R(x,y)$.
Homework Problem
elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations
elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations
New contributor
New contributor
edited Mar 13 at 18:48
Nate MacGregor
New contributor
asked Mar 13 at 17:57
Nate MacGregorNate MacGregor
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Would you show us your way of proving?
$endgroup$
– Vinyl_cape_jawa
Mar 13 at 18:09
$begingroup$
Would you show us the problem? I don't want to open image
$endgroup$
– enedil
Mar 13 at 18:13
$begingroup$
Ok, I updated with the part of the proof I disagreed with, the transitivity proof.
$endgroup$
– Nate MacGregor
Mar 13 at 18:49
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Would you show us your way of proving?
$endgroup$
– Vinyl_cape_jawa
Mar 13 at 18:09
$begingroup$
Would you show us the problem? I don't want to open image
$endgroup$
– enedil
Mar 13 at 18:13
$begingroup$
Ok, I updated with the part of the proof I disagreed with, the transitivity proof.
$endgroup$
– Nate MacGregor
Mar 13 at 18:49
$begingroup$
Would you show us your way of proving?
$endgroup$
– Vinyl_cape_jawa
Mar 13 at 18:09
$begingroup$
Would you show us your way of proving?
$endgroup$
– Vinyl_cape_jawa
Mar 13 at 18:09
$begingroup$
Would you show us the problem? I don't want to open image
$endgroup$
– enedil
Mar 13 at 18:13
$begingroup$
Would you show us the problem? I don't want to open image
$endgroup$
– enedil
Mar 13 at 18:13
$begingroup$
Ok, I updated with the part of the proof I disagreed with, the transitivity proof.
$endgroup$
– Nate MacGregor
Mar 13 at 18:49
$begingroup$
Ok, I updated with the part of the proof I disagreed with, the transitivity proof.
$endgroup$
– Nate MacGregor
Mar 13 at 18:49
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Sure, the definition of the relationship guarantees that if $langle s,trangle$ and $langle x,yrangle$ are in $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$, and it holds that $langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, then the ratio of $tfracxty$ will be an integer. It will equal $s$, which is an integer.
Indeed, we can represent the relation as $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangleiff tfrac pq=tfrac st$. [Since the pairs are from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ , therefore $q,t$ are definitely non-zero.]
So we have that for any three pairs, $langle p,qrangle,langle s,trangle,langle x,yrangle$ taken from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ ...
$langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangle$ by assumption
$langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$ by assumption
$tfrac pq=tfrac st$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac st=tfrac xy$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac pq=tfrac xy$ by equality elimination- $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$
Hence $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,tranglelandlangle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangletolangle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, and thus the relationship is transitive.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Nate MacGregor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3146935%2ferror-in-proving-a-relation-transitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Sure, the definition of the relationship guarantees that if $langle s,trangle$ and $langle x,yrangle$ are in $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$, and it holds that $langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, then the ratio of $tfracxty$ will be an integer. It will equal $s$, which is an integer.
Indeed, we can represent the relation as $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangleiff tfrac pq=tfrac st$. [Since the pairs are from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ , therefore $q,t$ are definitely non-zero.]
So we have that for any three pairs, $langle p,qrangle,langle s,trangle,langle x,yrangle$ taken from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ ...
$langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangle$ by assumption
$langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$ by assumption
$tfrac pq=tfrac st$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac st=tfrac xy$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac pq=tfrac xy$ by equality elimination- $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$
Hence $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,tranglelandlangle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangletolangle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, and thus the relationship is transitive.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Sure, the definition of the relationship guarantees that if $langle s,trangle$ and $langle x,yrangle$ are in $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$, and it holds that $langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, then the ratio of $tfracxty$ will be an integer. It will equal $s$, which is an integer.
Indeed, we can represent the relation as $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangleiff tfrac pq=tfrac st$. [Since the pairs are from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ , therefore $q,t$ are definitely non-zero.]
So we have that for any three pairs, $langle p,qrangle,langle s,trangle,langle x,yrangle$ taken from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ ...
$langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangle$ by assumption
$langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$ by assumption
$tfrac pq=tfrac st$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac st=tfrac xy$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac pq=tfrac xy$ by equality elimination- $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$
Hence $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,tranglelandlangle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangletolangle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, and thus the relationship is transitive.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Sure, the definition of the relationship guarantees that if $langle s,trangle$ and $langle x,yrangle$ are in $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$, and it holds that $langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, then the ratio of $tfracxty$ will be an integer. It will equal $s$, which is an integer.
Indeed, we can represent the relation as $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangleiff tfrac pq=tfrac st$. [Since the pairs are from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ , therefore $q,t$ are definitely non-zero.]
So we have that for any three pairs, $langle p,qrangle,langle s,trangle,langle x,yrangle$ taken from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ ...
$langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangle$ by assumption
$langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$ by assumption
$tfrac pq=tfrac st$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac st=tfrac xy$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac pq=tfrac xy$ by equality elimination- $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$
Hence $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,tranglelandlangle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangletolangle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, and thus the relationship is transitive.
$endgroup$
In the homework solution in the image the professor represents s as a ratio of integers, despite s itself being defined as an integer. Is this allowed? I proved the relation transitive without using this step.
Sure, the definition of the relationship guarantees that if $langle s,trangle$ and $langle x,yrangle$ are in $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$, and it holds that $langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, then the ratio of $tfracxty$ will be an integer. It will equal $s$, which is an integer.
Indeed, we can represent the relation as $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangleiff tfrac pq=tfrac st$. [Since the pairs are from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ , therefore $q,t$ are definitely non-zero.]
So we have that for any three pairs, $langle p,qrangle,langle s,trangle,langle x,yrangle$ taken from $Bbb Ztimes(Bbb Zsetminus0)$ ...
$langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,trangle$ by assumption
$langle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$ by assumption
$tfrac pq=tfrac st$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac st=tfrac xy$ by definition of $mathrm R$
$tfrac pq=tfrac xy$ by equality elimination- $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$
Hence $langle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle s,tranglelandlangle s,tranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangletolangle p,qranglemathrm Rlangle x,yrangle$, and thus the relationship is transitive.
answered Mar 13 at 23:32
Graham KempGraham Kemp
86.9k43579
86.9k43579
add a comment |
add a comment |
Nate MacGregor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nate MacGregor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nate MacGregor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Nate MacGregor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3146935%2ferror-in-proving-a-relation-transitive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Would you show us your way of proving?
$endgroup$
– Vinyl_cape_jawa
Mar 13 at 18:09
$begingroup$
Would you show us the problem? I don't want to open image
$endgroup$
– enedil
Mar 13 at 18:13
$begingroup$
Ok, I updated with the part of the proof I disagreed with, the transitivity proof.
$endgroup$
– Nate MacGregor
Mar 13 at 18:49