Solved

# Relations?

Posted on 2006-04-06
Medium Priority
267 Views
R is the set of all positive real numbers.  Define r @ x if and only if |r| = [x].  I don't have the correct symbols to use for it, but i do not mean absolute value.  |r| represents the greatest integer less than or equal to r.  [x] represents the smallest integer greater than or equal to x.

Is this relation an equivalence relation?  I'm struggling in why some relations ARE equivalence relations and some are not (some are partial order relations, for example).  Why is this or isn't it an equivalence relation?
0
Question by:liahow

LVL 44

Expert Comment

ID: 16393916

let r = 1.23 (or even 1.00000000000001)
let x = 0.23 (and      0.99999999999999)  for that matter

|r| = 1
[x] = 1

are r and x 'equivalent'???

AW
0

LVL 37

Accepted Solution

Harisha M G earned 2000 total points
ID: 16394352
'Equivalenence relation' has nothing to do with 'equivalence'...

A relation is said to be an equivalence relation if satisfies the following properties:

1) Reflexivity
2) Symmetry
3) Transitivity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

Reflexivity:
Let 0.5 be the number. Then, the greatest integer less than or equal to 0.5 is 0 and the smallest integer greater than or equal to 0.5 is 1
From this, you see that 0 <> 1 and hence, 0.5 cannot be a number in that set. So, your set should only consist of integers, and no real numbers.

And hence, reflexivity fails if the set contains real numbers. So, the given relation is not an equivalence relation under the set of reals.. however it is reflexive for set of integers and hence, the other two properties need to be checked..

Symmetry:
Now, consider 5 and 5 to be arbitrary elements in the set. 5 will be the greatest integer less than or equal to 5 and the smallest integer greater than or equal to 5. So they are same, and hence, it is symmetric.

Transitivity:
Let 5, 5 and 5 be the three elements, and 5 will be the result for all of them, and hence it is transitive too.

RESULT: The given relation is an equivalence relation under the set of integers
0

LVL 22

Expert Comment

ID: 16395388
The operation is define over the set of real numbers.  Symmetry fails for, say, 5.9 and 6.1.

btw, the |x| and [y] functions you're referring to are usually referred to as floor(x) and ceil(y) when you don't have the notations available.
0

LVL 37

Expert Comment

ID: 16395404
Symmetry fails for, say, 5.9 and 6.1.

What about reflexivity ? It would also fail
0

LVL 22

Expert Comment

ID: 16395416
I don't need to enumerate every reason that this relation is not an equivalence relation.  I just need to show one counterexample.
0

LVL 37

Expert Comment

ID: 16395461
Yeah, but generally, it is proved in order :)
0

Author Comment

ID: 16395794
Thanks for the tips!
0

## Featured Post

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

A Guide to the PMT, FV, IPMT and PPMT Functions In MS Excel we have the PMT, FV, IPMT and PPMT functions, which do a fantastic job for interest rate calculations.  But what if you don't have Excel ? This article is for programmers looking to re…
This is a research brief on the potential colonization of humans on Mars.
Finds all prime numbers in a range requested and places them in a public primes() array. I've demostrated a template size of 30 (2 * 3 * 5) but larger templates can be built such 210  (2 * 3 * 5 * 7) or 2310  (2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11). The larger templa…
I've attached the XLSM Excel spreadsheet I used in the video and also text files containing the macros used below. https://filedb.experts-exchange.com/incoming/2017/03_w12/1151775/Permutations.txt https://filedb.experts-exchange.com/incoming/201…
###### Suggested Courses
Course of the Month16 days, 5 hours left to enroll