Equivalence of Definitions of Reflexive Relation
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Theorem
The following definitions of the concept of Reflexive Relation are equivalent:
Definition 1
$\RR$ is reflexive if and only if:
- $\forall x \in S: \tuple {x, x} \in \RR$
Definition 2
$\RR$ is reflexive if and only if it is a superset of the diagonal relation:
- $\Delta_S \subseteq \RR$
Proof
Definition 1 implies Definition 2
Let $\RR$ be a relation.
We use a Proof by Contraposition by showing that:
- $\Delta_S \nsubseteq \RR \implies \exists x \in S: \tuple {x, x} \notin \RR$
Thus, suppose:
- $\Delta_S \nsubseteq \RR$
Then by definition of Diagonal Relation:
- $\exists \tuple {x, x} \in S \times S: \tuple {x, x} \notin \RR$
Thus:
- $\exists x \in S: \tuple {x, x} \notin \RR$
From Rule of Transposition it follows that:
- $\forall x \in S: \tuple {x, x} \in \RR \implies \Delta_S \subseteq \RR$
$\Box$
Definition 2 implies Definition 1
Let $\RR$ be a relation which fulfills the condition:
- $\Delta_S \subseteq \RR$
Then:
\(\ds \forall x \in S: \, \) | \(\ds \tuple {x, x}\) | \(\in\) | \(\ds \Delta_S\) | Definition of Diagonal Relation | ||||||||||
\(\ds \leadsto \ \ \) | \(\ds \forall x \in S: \, \) | \(\ds \tuple {x, x}\) | \(\in\) | \(\ds \RR\) | Definition of Subset |
Thus $\RR$ is reflexive by Definition 1.
$\blacksquare$
Sources
- 1965: Seth Warner: Modern Algebra ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $\text {II}$: New Structures from Old: $\S 10$: Equivalence Relations: Exercise $10.6 \ \text{(a)}$
- 1967: George McCarty: Topology: An Introduction with Application to Topological Groups ... (previous) ... (next): Chapter $\text{I}$: Sets and Functions: Relations: Theorem $3$
- 1975: T.S. Blyth: Set Theory and Abstract Algebra ... (previous) ... (next): $\S 6$. Indexed families; partitions; equivalence relations