# Am I correct? State the necessary and sufficient condition for R to be an equivalence relation on A.

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?

-
This is the definition of an equivalence relation, rather than a "necessary and sufficient" condition. Is there more context to the exercise ? – beauby Nov 15 '12 at 6:07
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. – crf Nov 15 '12 at 6:08
Incidentally, I'm not sure that your distinction between conditional and unconditional statements makes very much sense. – crf Nov 15 '12 at 6:09
I copied the question as it exactly was. it was a finals question, and no extra context. – Yellow Skies Nov 15 '12 at 6:09
@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. – beauby Nov 15 '12 at 6:10

## 1 Answer

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.

-
I guess you are right.. That must be a poorly worded question. To think it came out in such a major test. – Yellow Skies Nov 15 '12 at 6:15
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". – crf Nov 15 '12 at 6:17