# Prove that the intersection of two equivalence relations is an equivalence relation.

I am reading this chapter of the Book of Proof, and I'm stuck at the Exercise 10 of section 11.2. It is as follows.

Suppose $R$ and $S$ are two equivalence relations on a set $A$. Prove that $R \cap S$ is also an equivalence relation.

Thanks for helps!

-
Which of the three conditions are you finding hard to verify? –  Isomorphism Dec 15 '12 at 19:02

Hint: Use the fact that $R$ and $S$ are EQUIVALENCE relations on THE SAME set, and hence both must be reflexive, symmetric, and transitive on that set.

Then use the definition of set intersection: $R\cap S$ is the set of all pairs of elements in the set such that $(x, y) \in R$ AND $(x, y) \in S$ or, put differently, $(x, y) \in R\cap S \iff (x, y)\in R$ and $(x, y) \in S$.

Try to figure out what elements must necessarily be in $R\cap S$ and check to see that they must then be in both $R$ and $S$.

Another approach would be to use an indirect proof with the hints above:

"Given $R$ and $S$ are equivalence relations on a set $A$, suppose for the sake of contradiction, that $R\cap S$ is NOT an equivalence relation...". If not an equivalence relation, then $R\cap S$ fails to be reflexive and/or fails to be symmetric, and/or fails to be transitive. If you can work towards a contradiction (that this assumption must contradict the fact that both $R$ and $S$ are equivalence relations), then you are done.

-

For the solution of this exercise, you have to show that $R \cap S$ keeps the three properties of equivalence relations (reflexive, symmetric and transitive).

This means that for each x you have to show that $\langle x,x\rangle \in R \cap S$ and for each pair $\langle x,y\rangle \in R \cap S$, you have to show that $\langle y,x\rangle \in R \cap S$ and for each pairs $\langle x,y\rangle, \langle y,z\rangle \in R \cap S$ you have to show that $\langle x,z\rangle \in R \cap S$

-
Let's have 2 relations $$R- antisymmetric$$ $$S-antisymmetric$$ I had to prove that $R \cap S$ is also antisymmetric.
$$P=R \cap S$$ $$(x,y) \in P$$ $$\implies (x,y) \in R \cap S$$ $$\implies (x,y) \in R \wedge (x,y) \in S$$ $$\implies ((y,x) \notin R \wedge (y,x) \notin S) \Rightarrow(x \ne y)$$ $$\implies (y,x) \notin R \cap S$$ $$\implies (y,x) \notin P$$