# Why isn't reflexivity repetitive in the definition of equivalence relationship?

An equivalence relationship is specified by 3 buildings: reflexivity, proportion and also transitivity.

Does not proportion and also transitivity indicates reflexivity? Take into consideration the adhering to argument.

For any kind of $a$ and also $b$, $a R b$ indicates $b R a$ by proportion. Making use of transitivity, we have $a R a$.

Resource: Workout 8.46, P195 of *Mathematical Proofs*, 2nd (not 3rd) ed. by Chartrand et alia

Actually, without the reflexivity problem, the vacant relationship would certainly count as an equivalence relationship, which is non - perfect.

Your argument made use of the theory that for each and every $a$, there exists $b$ such that $aRb$ holds. If this holds true, after that proportion and also transitivity indicate reflexivity, yet this is not real as a whole.

Related questions