I have the following problem.
Suppose that $r \subseteq X \times Y$ is a relation with domain $X$ and codomain $Y$. Define a new relation $R^\circ \subseteq Y \times X$ by the rule that $(y, x) \in R^\circ$ if and only if $(x,y) \in R$.
Decide whether the following statements about $R^\circ$ are true or false, giving a proof or counterexample as required.
(a) If $R$ is a transitive relation, then $R^\circ$ is also a transitive relation.
We have the following proposition:
If $R$ is a transitive relation, then $R^\circ$ is also a transitive relation.
The hypothesis is
$R$ is a transitive relation.
The conclusion is
$R^\circ$ is also a transitive relation.
So we can assume that the hypothesis is true and work forwards from it to conclude that the conclusion must also be true.
Let $(x,y) \in R$ and $(y, z) \in R$.
$\therefore (x, z) \in R$, since $R$ is assumed to be transitive (the hypothesis).
$\therefore (z, y), (y, x), (z, x) \in R^\circ$, by the definition of $R^\circ$.
$\therefore R^\circ$ must be transitive.
However, my instructor says that this proof is automatically incorrect:
Any proof that starts with "Let $(x,y), (y,z) \in R$" is automatically incorrect.
However, using my previous knowledge of proof-writing, I'm struggling to understand why this would be incorrect. As I mentioned above, my reasoning is that we can assume that the hypothesis is true, and then work forwards to conclude that the conclusion must also be true. Based on my prior studies of proof-writing, I was under the impression that this was the correct way to go about writing proofs.
I would greatly appreciate it if people could please take the time to clarify this.