If R and S are two equivalence relations on a set A; then `R nn S` is also an equivalence relation on R.

Let R and S be two equivalence relations on a set A Then : " " A. R uu S is an equvalence relation on A " " B. R nn S is an equirvalence relation on A " " C. R - S is an equivalence relation on A " " D. None of these

If and and and are equivalence relations in a set A, show that R_(1)nn R_(2) is also an equivalence relation.

Statement-1: If R is an equivalence relation on a set A, then R^(-1) is also an equivalence relation. Statement-2: R = R^(-1) iff R is a symmetric relation.

The union of two equivalence relations on a set is not necessarily an equivalence relation on the set.

The union of two equivalence relations on a set is not necessarily an equivalence relation on the set.

Statement-1: The relation R on the set N xx N defined by (a, b) R (c, d) iff a+d = b+c for all a, b, c, d in N is an equivalence relation. Statement-2: The intersection of two equivalence relations on a set A is an equivalence relation.

Let R be the real line. Consider the following subsets of the plane RxxR . S""=""{(x ,""y)"":""y""=""x""+""1""a n d""0""<""x""<""2},""T""=""{(x ,""y)"":""x-y"" is an integer }. Which one of the following is true? (1) neither S nor T is an equivalence relation on R (2) both S and T are equivalence relations on R (3) S is an equivalence relation on R but T is not (4) T is an equivalence relation on R but S is not

Consider the following relations: R = {(x, y) | x, y are real numbers and x = wy for some rational number w}; S={(m/n , p/q)"m , n , pandqa r ei n t e g e r ss u c ht h a tn ,q"!="0andq m = p n"} . Then (1) neither R nor S is an equivalence relation (2) S is an equivalence relation but R is not an equivalence relation (3) R and S both are equivalence relations (4) R is an equivalence relation but S is not an equivalence relation

If R and S are transitive relations on a set A then prove that R uu S may not be a transitive relation on A.

If R and S are transitive relations on a set A then prove that R uu S may not be a transitive relation on A.