0
$\begingroup$

Let R be a relation on a given nonempty set A. State the necessary and sufficient condition for R to be an equivalence relation on A.

My attempt

The conditions for any equivalence relation are Transitivity, Symmetric and Reflexive.

Reflexive : For all elements $x\in A$, $xRx$. Therefore, this is a necessary condition.

Symmetric : If $aRb$, then $bRa$. Since this is conditional, it should be a sufficient condition.

Transitivity : If $aRb$ and $bRc$, then $aRc$. Since this is conditional, it should be a sufficient condition.

Am I correct?

  • 1
    This is the definition of an equivalence relation, rather than a "necessary and sufficient" condition. Is there more context to the exercise ?2012-11-15
  • 0
    Suppose transitivity was a sufficient condition. Then if a relation is transitive, it is an equivalence relation. The relation "is taller than" is transitive: if Jim is taller than Bob and Bob is taller than Frank then Jim is taller than Frank. It is not, however, reflexive, which you've claimed is a necessary condition. Contradiction. We have a problem.2012-11-15
  • 0
    Incidentally, I'm not sure that your distinction between conditional and unconditional statements makes very much sense.2012-11-15
  • 0
    I copied the question as it exactly was. it was a finals question, and no extra context.2012-11-15
  • 0
    @SingaporeanDude. Well, for $R$ to be reflexive, symmetric and transitive is, strictly speaking, necessary and sufficient for it to be an equivalence relation, but I find the wording a bit weird.2012-11-15
  • 0
    @crf Interesting breakdown of the question! I see so many errors in my logic~~2012-11-15

1 Answers 1

2

A definition provides a condition which is both necessary and sufficient. So when we write,

Definition. An equivalence relation on a nonempty set is a relation which is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.

We are saying that this is a single condition which is both necessary and sufficient for a relation to be considered an equivalence relation. We can break it up into three different conditions if we like, each of which would also be both necessary and sufficient.

  • 0
    I guess you are right.. That must be a poorly worded question. To think it came out in such a major test.2012-11-15
  • 0
    Well, I mean, it's not false to say "the necessary and sufficient condition for a relation to be an equivalence relation is that it satisfies reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity". But it is a strangely worded question—I would usually just ask for "the definition".2012-11-15