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 $\theta(s):\mathbb{C}\to \mathbb{R}$ be a well defined function. I define the following relation in $\mathbb{C}$.

$\forall s,q \in \mathbb{C}: s\mathbin{R}q\iff\theta(s)\ne 0 \pmod {2\pi}$ (and)

$\theta(q)\ne 0 \pmod {2\pi}$

The function $\pmod {2\pi}$ is the addition $\pmod {2\pi}$

My question: Is this an equivalence relation (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity)?

The formula of $\theta(s)$ is not important for this question.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Your relation is $$sRq\iff \theta(s)\not \equiv 0\text{ and }\theta(q)\not \equiv 0 \mod 2\pi$$ for $s,q\in \mathbb{C}$.

For symmetry: $$sRq\iff \theta(s)\not \equiv 0\text{ and }\theta(q)\not \equiv 0 \mod 2\pi \iff qRs$$

For transitivity: $$sRq\text{ and }qRp\iff \theta(s)\not \equiv 0\text{ and }\theta(q)\not \equiv 0\text{ and }\theta(p)\not \equiv 0 \mod 2\pi\implies sRp$$ Reflexitivity is: $$sRs\iff \theta(s)\not \equiv 0\mod 2\pi$$ That clearly depends on your choice of $\theta$. Therefore, $R$ is an equivalence relation iff $$\theta(\mathbb{C})\cap \left\{2k\pi:k\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}=\emptyset$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Yes, I must define the relation in the set $Ω={s∈ℂ:θ(s)≠0}$ – ZE1 Dec 20 '12 at 18:38
@user53124 $\theta (s)\not\equiv 0\mod 2\pi$ – Nameless Dec 20 '12 at 18:41
@copper.hat So you other have a meaningless equivalence relation or no equivalence relation at all – Nameless Dec 20 '12 at 18:52
Yes; that is a meaningful statement! – copper.hat Dec 20 '12 at 18:59
It is not an equivalence relation if there exists a point in $\mathbb{C}$ for which any property fails. There exists infinitely many points q in $\mathbb{C}$ for which $\theta(q) \equiv 0 \pmod {2\pi}$, and for each of these, reflexivity fails. Hence, as defined (an equivalence relation holding $\forall q \in \mathbb{C})$, it is not an equivalence relation, as copper.hat makes clear. One cannot arbitrarily exclude points from the set on which the relation is defined, unless that was the point of the exercise: "Define a set such that the relation is an equivalence relation." – amWhy Dec 20 '12 at 20:04

It is not an equivalence relation if there exists $x$ such that $\theta(x) = 0 \mod 2\pi $.

You need reflexivity, so if $x$ satisfies $\theta(x) = 0 \mod 2\pi $, then you do not have $x R x$, hence it is not an equivalence relation.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.