I remember this problem from Apostol's calculus textbook.
Let
be a commutative and transitive relation over a non-empty set. Show this proof is flawed:
is also reflexive over the set.
I asked this online like few months ago. One of the people said something about it is related to logic and I should figure it out by looking over the definition of the relations.
I thought of this again, and put it up on Facebook. Thx to Sackel sending me part of this Wikipedia article on equivalence relation.
The empty relation R on a non-empty set X (i.e. aRb is never true) is vacuously symmetric and transitive, but not reflexive.
awesome, now I see how this is not true.
First, here are the definition of the 3 kind of relations.
(reflexive)
(commutative)
(transitive)

but that doesn't mean
. So the last step of the proof was wrong.
Logic. I see.
Comments
Post new comment