Key Concept: Advanced Equivalence Class, Complex Real-World Application
c) Assertion is true, but Reason is false.
[Solution Description] To determine whether the assertion and reason are true, we need to analyze the properties of the given relation $R$:
1. **Reflexivity**: For any real number $a$, $a – a = 0$, which is clearly a multiple of 5. Thus, $aRa$ for all $a \in \mathbb{R}$, proving reflexivity.
2. **Symmetry**: Assume $aRb$ holds, meaning $(a-b)$ is a multiple of 5. Then $(b-a) = -(a-b)$ is also a multiple of 5, hence $bRa$. This proves symmetry.
3. **Transitivity**: Suppose $aRb$ and $bRc$; thus $(a-b)$ and $(b-c)$ are multiples of 5. Therefore, $(a-c) = (a-b) + (b-c)$ is also a multiple of 5, confirming transitivity.
Hence, $R$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathbb{R}$. It partitions $\mathbb{R}$ into equivalence classes such as $\{x + 5k \mid k \in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
Now analyzing the reason:
The relation $R$ does group numbers that differ by integer multiples of 5, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical fractional parts. Consider two numbers $2.3$ and $7.3$: they belong to different equivalence classes under $R$, but have the same fractional part. Thus, while the reason describes grouping based on integer differences, it inaccurately connects this to fractional parts, which makes it false in this context.
Therefore, both the assertion and reason do not correctly align regarding equivalence class formation based on fractional parts.
Your Answer is correct.
c) Assertion is true, but Reason is false.
[Solution Description] To determine whether the assertion and reason are true, we need to analyze the properties of the given relation $R$:
1. **Reflexivity**: For any real number $a$, $a – a = 0$, which is clearly a multiple of 5. Thus, $aRa$ for all $a \in \mathbb{R}$, proving reflexivity.
2. **Symmetry**: Assume $aRb$ holds, meaning $(a-b)$ is a multiple of 5. Then $(b-a) = -(a-b)$ is also a multiple of 5, hence $bRa$. This proves symmetry.
3. **Transitivity**: Suppose $aRb$ and $bRc$; thus $(a-b)$ and $(b-c)$ are multiples of 5. Therefore, $(a-c) = (a-b) + (b-c)$ is also a multiple of 5, confirming transitivity.
Hence, $R$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathbb{R}$. It partitions $\mathbb{R}$ into equivalence classes such as $\{x + 5k \mid k \in \mathbb{Z}\}$.
Now analyzing the reason:
The relation $R$ does group numbers that differ by integer multiples of 5, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical fractional parts. Consider two numbers $2.3$ and $7.3$: they belong to different equivalence classes under $R$, but have the same fractional part. Thus, while the reason describes grouping based on integer differences, it inaccurately connects this to fractional parts, which makes it false in this context.
Therefore, both the assertion and reason do not correctly align regarding equivalence class formation based on fractional parts.