Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $R \subseteq A \times A$ and $S \subseteq A \times A$ be two arbitary equivalence relations. Prove or disprove that $R \cup S$ is an equivalence relation.

Reflexivity: Let $(x,x) \in R$ or $(x,x) \cup S \rightarrow (x,x) \in R \cup S$

Now I still have to prove or disprove that $R \cup S$ is symmetric and transitive. How can I do that?

My guess for symmetry is: R and S are equivalence relations, which means that $(x,y)\ and\ (y,x) \in R,S$ For each (x,y) in R and S there is an (y,x) in R and S so that (x,y) ~ (y,x). Is that correct?

Transitivity: ?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Transitivity fails. Let $A = \{1,2,3\}$, $R = \{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (1,2), (2,1)\}$ and $S = \{(1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (2,3), (3,2)\}$, then $R \cup S$ contains both $(1,2)$ and $(2,3)$, but not $(1,3)$.

The symmetry could be worded better, but is alright. The important thing is that if $(x,y) \in R \cup S$ then $(x,y) \in R$ or $(x,y) \in S$, but both $R$ and $S$ are symmetrical so $(y,x)$ must be contained in at least one of them (here I use "or" instead of "and" you have used).

share|cite|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much :) – user3001 Mar 7 '12 at 12:23
    
And just to add, though trivial, its reflexice too, I guess. – PardonMeForMySuperPoorMaths Jan 23 '15 at 8:57

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.