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













-1












$begingroup$


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










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    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















-1












$begingroup$


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










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    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













-1












-1








-1





$begingroup$


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










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 13 at 18:48







Nate MacGregor













New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Mar 13 at 17:57









Nate MacGregorNate MacGregor

11




11




New contributor




Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Nate MacGregor is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    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 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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$


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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












    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.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    0












    $begingroup$


    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      0












      $begingroup$


      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$


        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Mar 13 at 23:32









        Graham KempGraham Kemp

        86.9k43579




        86.9k43579




















            Nate MacGregor is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

            random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

            Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye