Suppose we define a relation ~ on the set of nonzero real numbers R* = R\{0}...

Suppose we define a relation ~ on the set of nonzero real numbers R* = R\{0} by for all a , b E R*, a ~ b if and only if ab>0. Prove that ~ is an equivalence relation. Find the equivalence class [8]. How many distinct equivalence classes are there?

Expert Solution

Colby Messinger answered 1 year ago

Suppose we define a relation on the set of natural numbers as follows. Two numbers are...

Suppose we define a relation on the set of natural numbers as follows. Two numbers are related iff they leave the same remainder when divided by 5. Is it an equivalence relation? If yes, prove it and write the equivalence classes. If no, give formal justification.

On the set S of all real numbers, define a relation R = {(a, b):a ≤ b}. Show that R is transitive.

Suppose we define the relation R on the set of all people by the rule "a...

Suppose we define the relation R on the set of all people by the rule "a R b if and only if a is Facebook friends with b." Is this relation reflexive? Is is symmetric? Is it transitive? Is it an equivalence relation? Briefly but clearly justify your answers.

Determine whether the relation R on the set of all real numbers is reflexive, symmetric, antisymmetric,...

Determine whether the relation R on the set of all real numbers is reflexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, and/or transitive, where (x,y) ∈ R if and only if: a) x = 1 OR y = 1 b) x = 1 I was curious about how those two compare. I have the solutions for part a) already.

2. Define a relation R on pairs of real numbers as follows: (a, b)R(c, d) iff...

2. Define a relation R on pairs of real numbers as follows: (a, b)R(c, d) iff either a < c or both a = c and b ≤ d. Is R a partial order? Why or why not? If R is a partial order, draw a diagram of some of its elements. 3. Define a relation R on integers as follows: mRn iff m + n is even. Is R a partial order? Why or why not? If R is...

Let Rx denote the group of nonzero real numbers under multiplication and let R+ denote the...

Let Rx denote the group of nonzero real numbers under multiplication and let R+ denote the group of positive real numbers under multiplication. Let H be the subgroup {1, −1} of Rx. Prove that Rx ≈ R+ ⊕ H.

Let A be a set of real numbers. We say that A is an open set...

Let A be a set of real numbers. We say that A is an open set if for every x0 ∈ A there is some δ > 0 (which might depend on x0) such that (x0 − δ, x0 + δ) ⊆ A. Show that a set B of real numbers is closed if and only if B is the complement of some open set A

The Cantor set, C, is the set of real numbers r for which Tn(r) ϵ [0,1]...

The Cantor set, C, is the set of real numbers r for which Tn(r) ϵ [0,1] for all n, where T is the tent transformation. If we set C0= [0,1], then we can recursively define a sequence of sets Ci, each of which is a union of 2i intervals of length 3-i as follows: Ci+1 is obtained from Ci by removing the (open) middle third from each interval in Ci. We then can define the Cantor set by C= i=0...

1. Consider the function f: R→R, where R represents the set of all real numbers and...

1. Consider the function f: R→R, where R represents the set of all real numbers and for every x ϵ R, f(x) = x3. Which of the following statements is true? a. f is onto but not one-to-one. b. f is one-to-one but not onto. c. f is neither one-to-one nor onto. d. f is one-to-one and onto. 2. Consider the function g: Z→ {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, where Z represents the set of all integers and for...

Suppose A is the set of positive real numbers, and suppose u and v are two...

Suppose A is the set of positive real numbers, and suppose u and v are two strictly increasing functions.1 It is intuitive that u and v are ordinally equivalent, since both rank larger numbers higher, and therefore generate the same ranking of numbers. Write this intuition as a proof.

Question