In each case, we need to find all the pairs (a,b) with @ € A and b € B such that the condition is satisfied. This is straightforward. a) {(0,0), (1.1), (2,2). (3)}——-b) {(1.3), (2.2). 8.1), 4,0)} ©) {(1,0), (2,0), (2,1), (8,0). (3, 1). (3,2), (4,0), (4,1), (4,2), (4, 3)} d) Recalt that a[ means that b is a multiple of @ (a is not allowed to be 0). Thus the answer is {(1,0}, (1, 1). (1,2), (1,3), (2,0), (2, 2). (3, 0), (3.3), (4, 0)}. ‘e) We need to look for pairs whose greatest common divisor is 1-—in other words, pairs that are relatively prime. Thus the answer is {(0, 1), (1,0). (1, 1),(1,2), (1,3), (2.2), (2.3), (3.1), (3.2), (4,1), (4,3)}.2. a) (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (1,4), (1,5), (1,6), (2,2), (2,4), (2,6), (3,3), (3,6), (4,4), (5,5), (6,6)3. a) This relation is not reffexive, since it does not include, for instance (1,1). It is not symmetric, since it includes, for instance, (2,4) but not (4,2). It is not antisymmetric since it includes both (2,3) and (3,2), but 24 3. It is transitive. To see this we have to check that whenever it includes (a,b) and (b,¢), then it ction 9.1 Relations and Their Properties 313 also inchudes (a,c). We can ignore the elemeut 1 since it uever appears. If (a,6) is in this relation, then by inspection we see that a must be either 2 or 3. But (2,e) and (3,¢) are in the relation for all ¢ # 1; thus (a,c) has to be in this relation whenever (a,b) and (b,c) are. This proves tliat the relation is transitive. Note that it is very tedious to prove transitivity for an arbitrary list of ordered pairs. b) This relation is reflexive, since all the pairs (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), and (4,4) are init. It is clearly symmetric, the only nontrivial case to note being that both (1,2) and (2,1) are in the relation. Tt is uot antisymmetric because both (1,2) and (2,1) are in the relation, It is transitive, the ouly uoutrivial cases to uote are that since both (1,2) and (2,1) are in the relation, we need to lave (and do have) both (1,1) and (2,2) included as well. ) This relation clearly is not reflexive and clearly is symmetric, It is not antisymmetric since both (2,4) and (4,2) are in the relation. It is uot transitive, since although (2,4) and (4,2) are in the relation, (2,2) is not. d) This relation is clearly not reflexive. It is not symmetric, since, for instance, (1,2) is included but (2,1) is not. It is antisymmetric, since there are 110 cases of (a,6) and (b,a) both being in the relation. It is not transitive, since although (1,2) and (2,3) are iu the relation, (1,3) is not, €) This relation is clearly reflexive aud symmetric, It is trivially antisymmetric since there are no pairs (a,6) in the relation with a # b. It is trivially transitive, since the only time the hypothesis (a,b) € RA (b,c) E.R is met is when a= b=. f) This relation is clearly not reflexive, The presence of (1,4) and absence of (4,1) shows that it is not symmetric. ‘The presence of both (1,3) and (3,1) shows that it is not antisynmuetric, It is uot transitive; both (2,3) and (3,1) are in the relation, but (2,1) is not, for instance.a) Being taller than is not reflexive (I am not taller than myself), nor symmetric (I am taller than my daughter, but she is not taller than I). It is antisymmetric (vacuously, since we never have A taller than B, and B taller than A, even if A= B). It is clearly transitive. b) This is clearly reflexive, symmetric, and transitive (it is an equivalence relation—see Section 9.5). It is not antisymmetric, since twins, for example, are unequal people born on the same day. 's as part (b), since having the same first name is just like having the ¢) This has exactly the same answe same birthday.Recall the definitions. R is reflexive if (a,a) € R for all a; R is symmetric if (a,b) € R always implies (ba) € R; R is antisymmetric if (0,6) € R and (6,4) € R always implies a = b; and R is transitive if (0,6) € R and (b,c) € R always implies (a,c) € R. a) It is tantological that everyone who has visited Web page @ has also visited Web page a, so Ris reflexive, It is not symmetric, because there surely are Web pages « and 6 such thot the set of people who visited a is a proper subset of the set of people who visited b (for example, the oully link to page a may be on page b). Whether R is antisymmetric in truth is hard to say, but it is certainly conceivable that there ure two different Web pages a and 6 that have had exactly the same set of visitors. In this case, (a,) € R and (b,a) € R, so R is not antisymmetric. Finally, R is transitive: if everyone who has visited @ has also visited 6, and everyone wlio lias visited b has also visited ¢, then clearly everyone who has visited a has also visited e. b) This relation is not reflexive, becanse for any page @ that has links on it, (aa) ¢ R. The definition of R is symmetric in its very statement, so R is clearly symmetric. Also R is certainly not antisymmetric, because there surely are two different Web pages a and 6 out there that lave no common links fouud on them. Finally, 2 is not transitive, because the two Web pages just mentioned, assuming they have links at all, give an example of the failure of the definition: (a,8) € R and (b,a) € R, but (a,a) ¢ R. ©) This relation is uot reflexive, because for any page a that has no links on it, (a,a) ¢ R. The definition of R is symmetric in its very statement, so R is clearly symmetric. Also R is certainly not antisyznietric, because there surely are two different Web pages a and 6 out there that have a common link found on them. Finally, R is surely not transitive. Page @ might have only one link (say to this textbook), page ¢ might have ouly one link different fromn this (say to the Erdés Numiber Project), and page 6 niay have ouly the two links mentioned in this sentence. Then (a,6) € R and (b,c) € R, but (a,c) ¢ R. 4d) This relation is probably not reflexive, because there probably exist Web pages out there with no links at all to them (for example, when they are in the process of being written and tested); for any sucl page @ we have (a,a) ¢ R. The definition of R is symmetric in its very statement, so R is clearly symmetric. Also R is certainly not antisymmetric, because there surely are two different Web pages a and 6 out there that are referenced by some third page. Finally, R is surely not transitive. Page a might have only oue page that links 314 Chapter 9 Relations to it, page c might also have only one page, different from this, that links to it, and page 6 may be cited on both of these two pages. Then there wonld be no page that includes links to both pages @ and c, so we have (a,b) € R and (b,c) € R, but (a,c) ¢ RK.a) Since 1 +1 # 0, this relation is not reflexive. Since «+y = y +2, it follows that © +y = 0 if and only if y +r =0, so the relation is symmetric. Since (1,—1) and (—1,1) are both in R, the relation is not antisymmetric. ‘The relation is not transitive; for example, (1,—1) € R and (—1,1) € R, but (1,1) ¢ R. b) Since x ta (choosing the plus sign), the relation is reflexive. Since x = ty if and only if y = x, . Since (1,1) and (1,1) are both in R, the relation is not antisymmetric. The ion is transitive, essentially because the product of 1's and —1's is +1 rela c) The relation is reflexive, since « — 2 = 0 is a rational number. The relation is symmetric, because if x —y is rational, then so is —(z —y) = y —. Since (1,—1) and (—1,1) are both in R, the relation is not ‘ion 9.1 Relations and Their Properties 231 antisymmetric. To see that the relation is transitive, note that if (z,y) € R and (y,2) € R, then «—-y and y—2 are rational numbers. Therefore their sum sr — 2 is rational, and that means that (x,z) € R. d) Since 14 2-1, this relation is not reflexive. It is not symmetric, since (2,1) € R, but (1,2) ¢ R. To see that it is antisymmetric, suppose that x = 2y and y = 2x. Then y = 4y, from which it follows that y =0 and hence © = 0. Thus the only time that (,y) and (y,:) are both is & is when x = y (and both are 0) This relation is clearly not transitive, since (4,2) € R and (2,1) € R, but (4,1) ¢ R. e) This relation is reflexive since squares are always nonnegative. It is clearly symmetric (the roles of and y in the statement are interchangeable). It is not antisymmetric, since (2,3) and (3,2) are both in R. It is ive; for example, (1,0) € R and (0,—2) € R, but (1,-2) ¢ R f) This is not reflexive, since (1,1) ¢ R. It is clearly symmetric (the roles of x and y in the statement are interchangeable). It is not antisymmetric, since (2,0) and (0,2) are both in R. It is not transitive; for example, (1,0) € R and (0,—2) € R, but (1,—2) ¢ RB. g) This is not reflexive, since (2,2) ¢ R. It is not symmetric, since (1,2) € R but (2,1) ¢ R. It is antisymmetric, because if («,y) € R and (y,) € R, then x = 1 and y = 1, so « = y. It is transitive, because if (x,y) € R and (y,z) € R, then z =1 (and y=1, although that doesn’t matter), so (x,z) € R not trans h) This is not reflexive, since (2,2) ¢ R. It is clearly symmetric (the roles of x and y in the statement are interchangeable). It is not antisymmetric, since (2,1) and (1,2) are both in R. It is not transitive; for example, (3,1) € R and (1,7) € 8, but (3,7) ¢ R.Tn each case we use a 3x3 matrix, putting a 1 in position (é,j) if the pair (i, ) is in the relation and a 0 in position (i,j) if the pair (i,j) is not in the relation. For instance, in pact (a) there are 1's in the first row, sinee each of the pains (1.1), (1,2), and (1.3) are in the relation, and there aro 0's elsewhere. a) fra. b) foe e) flia a) food 000 110 oil 000 000 001 oo 100We draw the directed graph with the vertex set being {a,b,,d} and an edge from i to j whenever (i,j) is in the relation.u each case we need to check for reflexivity, syimmetry, and transitivity. 2) This is an equivalence relation; it is easily seen to have all three properties. The equivalence classes all 1ave just one element. 9) This relation is not reflexive since the pair (1, 1) is missing. It is also not transitive, since the pairs (0, 2) und (2,8) are there, but not (0.3). :) This is an equivalence relation, ‘The clements 1 and 2 are in the same equivalence class; 0 aud 3 are each n their own equivalence class. 1) This relation is reflexive and symmetric, but it is not transitive. ‘The pairs (1,3) and (3,2) are present, mut not (1,2) ») ‘This relation would be an equivalence relation were the pair (2,1) present. As it is, its absence makes the elution neither symmetric nor transitive.‘an equivalence relation Exercise 9 b) This is an equivalence relation by Exercise 9 (f(r) is 2's parents). c) This is not an equivalence relation, since it need not be transitive. (We assume that biological parentage is at issue here, so it is possible for A to be the child of W and X, B to be the child of X and Y, and C to be the child of Y and Z. Then A is related to B, and B is related to C, but A is not related to C.) 4) This.is not an equivalence relation since it is clearly not, transitive €), Again, just_as in part (c), this is not transitiveBy algebra, the given condition is the same as the condition that #((a,b)) = f((c.d)), where f(x,y) = ey. Therefore by Exercise 9 this is an equivalence relation, If we want a more explicit: proof, we can argue as follows. For reflexivity, ((a,b), (a,8)) € R because «+b = b+ a. For symmetry, ((a.b),(c,d)) € R if and only if a+d=b-+e, which is equivalent to ¢-+6= d +a, which is true if and only if ((cyd),(a,6)) € R. For trausitivity, suppose (a,b). (c,d)) € Rand ((c,d).(c. f)) € R. Thus we have a+d=b+e and cte=d+f Adding, we obtain a+d+c+e=b+c+d+f. Simplifying. we have a+¢ = 6+ f, which tells us that (0), NERThis follows from Exercise 9, where f is the function from the set of pairs of positive integers to the set of positive rational numbers that takes (a,b) to a/b, since clearly ad = be if and only if a/b = e/d If we want an explicit proof, we can argue as follows. For reftexivity, ((a,b),(a,b)) € R because a-b = b-a. If ((a,b),(c,d)) € R then ad = be, which also means that cb = da, so (c,d), (a,)) € R; this tells us that R is symmetric. Finally, if ((a,b),(c.d)) € R and (c,d), (e, f)) € R then ad = be and cf = de. Multiplying these equations gives acdf = bede, and since all these numbers are nonzero, we have af = be, so ((a,b),(e, f)) € Rs this tells us that R is transitive.We need to observe whether the relation is reflexive (there is a loop at each vertex), symmetric (every edge that appears is accompanied by its antiparallel mate-~an edge involving the same two vertices but pointing in the opposite direction), and transitive (paths of length 2 are accompanied by the path of length 1--ie., edige—between the same two vertices in the same direction). We sce that this relation is not transitive, since the edges (¢,d) and (d,c) are missing. a iGAs in Fxercise 21, this relation is not transitive, since several required edges are missing (snch as (a,¢)).We need to observe whether the relation is reflexive (there is a loop at each vertex), symmetric (every edge that appears is accompanied by its antiparallel mate—an edge involving the same two vertices but pointing in the opposite direction), and transitive (paths of length 2 are accompanied by the path of length 1—ie., edge—between the same two vertices in the same direction). We see that this relation is an equivalence relation, satisfying all three properti uivalence classes are {a,d} and {b,c}.24, a) This is not an equivalence relation, since it is not symmetric. b) This is an equivalence relation; one equivalence class consists of the first and third elements, and the other consists of the second and fourth elements. ) This is an equivalence relation; one equivalence class consists of the first, second, and third elements, and the other consists of the fourth element.