MCQ 11 Mark
Assertion (A): If $A=\{x \in z: 0 \leq x \leq 12\}$ and R is the relation in A given by $R =\{( a , b ): a = b$.Then, the set of all elements related to 1 is {1, 2}.
Reason (R): If $R _1$ and $R _2$ are equivalence relation in a set A , then $R_1 \cap R_2$ is an equivalence relation.
Reason (R): If $R _1$ and $R _2$ are equivalence relation in a set A , then $R_1 \cap R_2$ is an equivalence relation.
- ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.
- BBoth A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
- CA is true but R is false.
- DA is false but R is true.
Answer
View full question & answer→(d) A is false but R is true.
Explanation: Assertion: The elements that are related to 1 will be those elements from set A which are equal to 1. Hence, the set of elements related to 1 is {1}.
Reason: Since , $R _1$ and $R _2$ are equivalence relations, therefore $( a , a ) \in R_1,(a, a) \in R_2, \forall a \in A$.
This implies that $(a, a) \in R_1 \cap R_2, \forall a$.
Hence, $R_1 \cap R_2$ is reflexive.
Further, $( a , b ) \in R_1 \cap R_2 \Rightarrow( a , b ) \in R_1$ and $( a , b ) \in R _2$ and $( b , a ) \in R _2$
$\Rightarrow(b, a) \in R_1 \cap R_2$
Hence, $R _1 \cap R _2$ is symmetric.
Similarly, $(a, b) \in R_1 \cap R_2$ and $(b, c) \in R_1 \cap R_2$
$\Rightarrow(a, c) \in R_1 \text { and }(a, c) \in R_2 \Rightarrow(a, c) \in R_1 \cap R_2$
This implies that $R_1 \cap R_2$ is transitive.
Hence, $R _1 \cap R _2$ is an equivalence relation.
Explanation: Assertion: The elements that are related to 1 will be those elements from set A which are equal to 1. Hence, the set of elements related to 1 is {1}.
Reason: Since , $R _1$ and $R _2$ are equivalence relations, therefore $( a , a ) \in R_1,(a, a) \in R_2, \forall a \in A$.
This implies that $(a, a) \in R_1 \cap R_2, \forall a$.
Hence, $R_1 \cap R_2$ is reflexive.
Further, $( a , b ) \in R_1 \cap R_2 \Rightarrow( a , b ) \in R_1$ and $( a , b ) \in R _2$ and $( b , a ) \in R _2$
$\Rightarrow(b, a) \in R_1 \cap R_2$
Hence, $R _1 \cap R _2$ is symmetric.
Similarly, $(a, b) \in R_1 \cap R_2$ and $(b, c) \in R_1 \cap R_2$
$\Rightarrow(a, c) \in R_1 \text { and }(a, c) \in R_2 \Rightarrow(a, c) \in R_1 \cap R_2$
This implies that $R_1 \cap R_2$ is transitive.
Hence, $R _1 \cap R _2$ is an equivalence relation.