Ggthjy

Why is my log file so massive? 22gb. I am running log backups

What is it called when one voice type sings a 'solo'?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Unbreakable Formation vs. Cry of the Carnarium

How to manage monthly salary

Prime joint compound before latex paint?

Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?

Where to refill my bottle in India?

New order #4: World

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

What causes the sudden spool-up sound from an F-16 when enabling afterburner?

Finding files for which a command fails

What is GPS' 19 year rollover and does it present a cybersecurity issue?

Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning

Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?

COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?

Patience, young "Padovan"

Copycat chess is back

Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?

How to make particles emit from certain parts of a 3D object?

aging parents with no investments

Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a good pack animal for the ancient Mayans?

If a centaur druid Wild Shapes into a Giant Elk, do their Charge features stack?

Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?

How is the relation “the smallest element is the same” reflexive?

Need help counting equivalence classes.Finding the smallest relation that is reflexive, transitive, and symmetricSmallest relation for reflexive, symmetry and transitivityEquivalence relation example. How is this even reflexive?Is antisymmetric the same as reflexive?Finding the smallest equivalence relation containing a specific list of ordered pairsHow is this an equivalence relation?truefalse claims in relations and equivalence relationsWhat is the least and greatest element in symmetric but not reflexive relation over ${1,2,3}$?How is this case a reflexive relation?

9

$begingroup$

Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of all nonempty subsets of the set ${1,2,3,...,10}$. Define the relation $mathcal{R}$ on $mathcal{X}$ by: $forall A, B in mathcal{X}, A mathcal{R} B$ iff the smallest element of $A$ is equal to the smallest element of $B$. For example, ${1,2,3} mathcal{R} {1,3,5,8}$ because the smallest element of ${1,2,3}$ is $1$ which is also the smallest element of ${1,3,5,8}$.

Prove that $mathcal{R}$ is an equivalence relation on $mathcal{X}$.

From my understanding, the definition of reflexive is:

$$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

However, for this problem, you can have the relation with these two sets:

${1}$ and ${1,2}$

Then wouldn't this not be reflexive since $2$ is not in the first set, but is in the second set?

I'm having trouble seeing how this is reflexive. Getting confused by the definition here.

discrete-mathematics elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations

share|cite|improve this question

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Reflexive means that every element is related to itself. Thus, for reflexivity you have to consider one set only. Ok, we have that ${ 1 } mathcal R { 1,2 }$ but we have also ${ 1 } mathcal R { 1 }$ and ${ 1,2 } mathcal R { 1,2 }$
  $endgroup$
  – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Note: “reflexive” does not mean that if $x$ is related to $y$, then $x=y$. It means that if $x=y$, then $x$ is related to $y$.
  $endgroup$
  – Arturo Magidin
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  So it must be reflexive because both $A$ and $B$ belong to the same set $mathcal{X}$?
  $endgroup$
  – qbuffer
  yesterday
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @qbuffer Have a look at the updated version of my answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Haris Gusic
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

9

$begingroup$

Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of all nonempty subsets of the set ${1,2,3,...,10}$. Define the relation $mathcal{R}$ on $mathcal{X}$ by: $forall A, B in mathcal{X}, A mathcal{R} B$ iff the smallest element of $A$ is equal to the smallest element of $B$. For example, ${1,2,3} mathcal{R} {1,3,5,8}$ because the smallest element of ${1,2,3}$ is $1$ which is also the smallest element of ${1,3,5,8}$.

Prove that $mathcal{R}$ is an equivalence relation on $mathcal{X}$.

From my understanding, the definition of reflexive is:

$$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

However, for this problem, you can have the relation with these two sets:

${1}$ and ${1,2}$

Then wouldn't this not be reflexive since $2$ is not in the first set, but is in the second set?

I'm having trouble seeing how this is reflexive. Getting confused by the definition here.

discrete-mathematics elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations

share|cite|improve this question

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  5
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Reflexive means that every element is related to itself. Thus, for reflexivity you have to consider one set only. Ok, we have that ${ 1 } mathcal R { 1,2 }$ but we have also ${ 1 } mathcal R { 1 }$ and ${ 1,2 } mathcal R { 1,2 }$
  $endgroup$
  – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  7
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Note: “reflexive” does not mean that if $x$ is related to $y$, then $x=y$. It means that if $x=y$, then $x$ is related to $y$.
  $endgroup$
  – Arturo Magidin
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  So it must be reflexive because both $A$ and $B$ belong to the same set $mathcal{X}$?
  $endgroup$
  – qbuffer
  yesterday
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @qbuffer Have a look at the updated version of my answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Haris Gusic
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of all nonempty subsets of the set ${1,2,3,...,10}$. Define the relation $mathcal{R}$ on $mathcal{X}$ by: $forall A, B in mathcal{X}, A mathcal{R} B$ iff the smallest element of $A$ is equal to the smallest element of $B$. For example, ${1,2,3} mathcal{R} {1,3,5,8}$ because the smallest element of ${1,2,3}$ is $1$ which is also the smallest element of ${1,3,5,8}$.

Prove that $mathcal{R}$ is an equivalence relation on $mathcal{X}$.

From my understanding, the definition of reflexive is:

$$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

However, for this problem, you can have the relation with these two sets:

${1}$ and ${1,2}$

Then wouldn't this not be reflexive since $2$ is not in the first set, but is in the second set?

I'm having trouble seeing how this is reflexive. Getting confused by the definition here.

discrete-mathematics elementary-set-theory relations equivalence-relations

share|cite|improve this question

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

share|cite|improve this question

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

edited 22 hours ago

Martin Sleziak

45k10122277

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

asked yesterday

qbufferqbuffer

675

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

10

$begingroup$

Why are you testing reflexivity by looking at two different elements of $mathcal{X}$? The definition of reflexivity says that a relation is reflexive iff each element of $mathcal X$ is in relation with itself.

To check whether $mathcal R$ is reflexive, just take one element of $mathcal X$, let's call it $x$. Then check whether $x$ is in relation with $x$. Because $x=x$, the smallest element of $x$ is equal to the smallest element of $x$. Thus, by definition of $mathcal R$, $x$ is in relation with $x$. Now, prove that this is true for all $x in mathcal X$. Of course, this is true because $min(x) = min(x)$ is always true, which is intuitive. In other words, $x mathcal{R} x$ for all $x in mathcal X$, which is exactly what you needed to prove that $mathcal R$ is reflexive.

You must understand that the definition of reflexivity says nothing about whether different elements (say $x,y$, $xneq y$) can be in the relation $mathcal R$. The fact that ${1}mathcal R {1,2}$ does not contradict the fact that ${1,2}mathcal R {1,2}$ as well.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

A binary relation $R$ over a set $mathcal{X}$ is reflexive if every element of $mathcal{X}$ is related to itself. The more formal definition has already been given by you, i.e. $$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

Note here that you've picked two different elements of the set to make your comparison when you should be comparing an element with itself. Also make sure you understand that an element may be related to other elements as well, reflexivity does not forbid that. It just says that every element must be related to itself.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112

$endgroup$

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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3178532%2fhow-is-the-relation-the-smallest-element-is-the-same-reflexive%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

10

$begingroup$

Why are you testing reflexivity by looking at two different elements of $mathcal{X}$? The definition of reflexivity says that a relation is reflexive iff each element of $mathcal X$ is in relation with itself.

To check whether $mathcal R$ is reflexive, just take one element of $mathcal X$, let's call it $x$. Then check whether $x$ is in relation with $x$. Because $x=x$, the smallest element of $x$ is equal to the smallest element of $x$. Thus, by definition of $mathcal R$, $x$ is in relation with $x$. Now, prove that this is true for all $x in mathcal X$. Of course, this is true because $min(x) = min(x)$ is always true, which is intuitive. In other words, $x mathcal{R} x$ for all $x in mathcal X$, which is exactly what you needed to prove that $mathcal R$ is reflexive.

You must understand that the definition of reflexivity says nothing about whether different elements (say $x,y$, $xneq y$) can be in the relation $mathcal R$. The fact that ${1}mathcal R {1,2}$ does not contradict the fact that ${1,2}mathcal R {1,2}$ as well.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

10

$begingroup$

Why are you testing reflexivity by looking at two different elements of $mathcal{X}$? The definition of reflexivity says that a relation is reflexive iff each element of $mathcal X$ is in relation with itself.

To check whether $mathcal R$ is reflexive, just take one element of $mathcal X$, let's call it $x$. Then check whether $x$ is in relation with $x$. Because $x=x$, the smallest element of $x$ is equal to the smallest element of $x$. Thus, by definition of $mathcal R$, $x$ is in relation with $x$. Now, prove that this is true for all $x in mathcal X$. Of course, this is true because $min(x) = min(x)$ is always true, which is intuitive. In other words, $x mathcal{R} x$ for all $x in mathcal X$, which is exactly what you needed to prove that $mathcal R$ is reflexive.

You must understand that the definition of reflexivity says nothing about whether different elements (say $x,y$, $xneq y$) can be in the relation $mathcal R$. The fact that ${1}mathcal R {1,2}$ does not contradict the fact that ${1,2}mathcal R {1,2}$ as well.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Why are you testing reflexivity by looking at two different elements of $mathcal{X}$? The definition of reflexivity says that a relation is reflexive iff each element of $mathcal X$ is in relation with itself.

To check whether $mathcal R$ is reflexive, just take one element of $mathcal X$, let's call it $x$. Then check whether $x$ is in relation with $x$. Because $x=x$, the smallest element of $x$ is equal to the smallest element of $x$. Thus, by definition of $mathcal R$, $x$ is in relation with $x$. Now, prove that this is true for all $x in mathcal X$. Of course, this is true because $min(x) = min(x)$ is always true, which is intuitive. In other words, $x mathcal{R} x$ for all $x in mathcal X$, which is exactly what you needed to prove that $mathcal R$ is reflexive.

You must understand that the definition of reflexivity says nothing about whether different elements (say $x,y$, $xneq y$) can be in the relation $mathcal R$. The fact that ${1}mathcal R {1,2}$ does not contradict the fact that ${1,2}mathcal R {1,2}$ as well.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

answered yesterday

Haris GusicHaris Gusic

3,441627

5

$begingroup$

A binary relation $R$ over a set $mathcal{X}$ is reflexive if every element of $mathcal{X}$ is related to itself. The more formal definition has already been given by you, i.e. $$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

Note here that you've picked two different elements of the set to make your comparison when you should be comparing an element with itself. Also make sure you understand that an element may be related to other elements as well, reflexivity does not forbid that. It just says that every element must be related to itself.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

5

$begingroup$

A binary relation $R$ over a set $mathcal{X}$ is reflexive if every element of $mathcal{X}$ is related to itself. The more formal definition has already been given by you, i.e. $$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

Note here that you've picked two different elements of the set to make your comparison when you should be comparing an element with itself. Also make sure you understand that an element may be related to other elements as well, reflexivity does not forbid that. It just says that every element must be related to itself.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

A binary relation $R$ over a set $mathcal{X}$ is reflexive if every element of $mathcal{X}$ is related to itself. The more formal definition has already been given by you, i.e. $$mathcal{R} text{ is reflexive iff } forall x in mathcal{X}, x mathcal{R} x$$

Note here that you've picked two different elements of the set to make your comparison when you should be comparing an element with itself. Also make sure you understand that an element may be related to other elements as well, reflexivity does not forbid that. It just says that every element must be related to itself.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112

answered yesterday

s0ulr3aper07s0ulr3aper07

673112