Math, asked by jayasudhamurugaiyan, 3 months ago

in the sets z of integers define mrn if m-n is a multiple of 12 prove that a R is an equivalence relation​

Answers

Answered by Anonymous
0

Answer:Given:

Relation mRn defined on set of integers Z

m-n is a multiple of 12.

To prove:

The relation R is an equivalence relation.

Solution:

First of all, let us have a look at the definition of equivalence relation.

A relation R defined on set Z is known as equivalence relation if it is:

1. Reflexive:

if aRa, \forall a\in Z

2. Symmetric

if aRb\Rightarrow bRA \ \forall a,b\in Z

3. Transitive:

aRb, bRc \Rightarrow aRc \ \forall a,b,c \in Z

The given relation is:

R = \{(m,n) : m-n \text{ is a multiple of 12}; m,n\in Z\}

1. Reflexive:

mRm = m-m=0

0 is a multiple of 12, \therefore \bold{reflexive}.

2. Symmetric:

mRn\Rightarrow m-n=12a

nRM\Rightarrow n-m=-12a

Both are multiple of 12, \therefore \bold{symmetric}.

3. Transitive:

mRn\Rightarrow m-n=12a .... (1)

nRo\Rightarrow n-o=12b .... (2)

Adding (1) and (2):

m-o=12(a+b)

Hence, mRo. \therefore \bold{transitive}.

Hence proved that the relation R is equivalence relation.

Step-by-step explanation:

Answered by Anonymous
0

here's ur answer dude

ANSWER

We know that a number is a factor as well as multiple of itself.

Since 'n' will be a factor of 'n' for any natural number, hence (n,n) will be a subset of the relation. In other words nRn for a natural number 'n' holds true. This makes the relation reflexive.

If 'n' is a factor of 'm' then simultaneously 'm' cannot be a factor of 'n' since n≤m.

Thus mRn→nRm is not true. Thus the relation is not symmetric.

Now, if 'm' is multiple of 'n' and 'p' be a multiple of 'm', (all being distinct natural numbers), then 'n' will be a common factor of 'm' and 'p'. Thus

pRm→mRn→pRn is true.

Hence the relation is transitive.

hope it helps

Similar questions