We suppose thar "R_1R_2\\equiv R_1\\cap R_2" because for "R_1\\circ R_2" statement is not valid.
1) reflexivity
Let x be any element in X, then "<x,x>\\in R_1,<x,x>\\in R_2"
because R1,R2 both are reflexive therefore by definition we have that "<x,x>\\in R_1\\cap R_2=R_1R_2" . So reflexivity is proved.
2) symmetry
Let "<x,y>\\in R_1\\cap R_2" . Then "<x,y>\\in R_1" and "<x,y>\\in R_2"
Therefore "<y,x>\\in R_1" and "<y,x>\\in R_2" because both of R1,R2 are symmetrc as equivalences. By definition of intersection we have "<y,x>\\in R_1\\cap R_2" therefore R1R2 is symmetrical
3) transitivity
Let "<x,y>,<y,z>\\in R_1\\cap R_2" . Therefore "<x,y>,<y,z>\\in R_1" and "<x,y>,<y,z>\\in R_2" . This this entails "<x,z>\\in R_1" and "<x,z>\\in R_2" because R1,R2 are transitive. So "<x,z>\\in R_1R_2" , therefore R1R2 is transitive.
In this way three basical properties of equivalence are proved and so R1R2 is equivalence.
Comments
Leave a comment