Here is Prob. 7, Sec. 5, in the book Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis by George F. Simmons:
Let $X$ be a non-empty set. A relation $\sim$ in $X$ is called circular if $x \sim y$ and $y \sim z$ $\implies z \sim x$, and triangular if $x \sim y$ and $x \sim z$ $\implies y \sim z$. Prove that a relation in $X$ is an equivalence relation $\iff$ it is reflexive and circular $\iff$ it is reflexive and triangular.
My Attempt:
Suppose that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation in $X$. Then the following three statements hold:
(1) $x \sim x$ for every $x \in X$.
(2) For any $x, y \in X$, if $x \sim y$, then $y \sim x$ also.
(3) For any $x, y, z \in X$, if $x \sim y$ and $y \sim z$, then $x \sim z$ also.
Let $x, y, z \in X$ such that $x \sim y$ and $y \sim z$. Then by (3) we have $x \sim z$, and hence by (2) we have $z \sim x$, thus showing that relation $\sim$ in $X$, which is already reflexive, is circular as well.
Am I right?
Now suppose that relation $\sim$ in $X$ is reflexive and circular. Then the following two statements hold:
(1) For any $x \in X$, we have $x \sim x$.
(2) For any $x, y, z \in X$, if $x \sim y$ and $y \sim z$, then $z \sim x$.
Let $x, y, z \in X$, and suppose that $x \sim y$ and $x \sim z$.
But we also have $x \sim x$.
Now as $x \sim x$ and $x \sim y$, so we also have $y \sim x$ as well.
Thus we have $y \sim x$ and $x \sim z$. Therefore we also have $z \sim y$.
Finally, as we have $z \sim z$ and $z \sim y$, so we also have $y \sim z$.
Thus we have shown that, for any elements $x, y, z \in X$, if $x \sim y$ and $x \sim z$, then $y \sim z$ also.
Therefore the relation $\sim$ on $X$, which is already reflexive, is also triangular.
Am I right?
Lastly, suppose that relation $\sim$ on $X$ is reflexive and triangular. Then the following two statements hold:
(1) For any element $x \in X$, we have $x \sim x$.
(2) For any elements $x, y, z \in X$, if $x \sim y$ and $x \sim z$, then we also have $y \sim z$.
Let $x, y, z \in X$.
First suppose that $x \sim y$. Then as $x \sim y$ and $x \sim x$, so we also have $y \sim x$. Thus relation $\sim$ is symmetric.
Next suppose that $x \sim y$ and $y \sim z$. Then we have $y \sim x$ and $y \sim z$, and therefore $x \sim z$. Thus relation $\sim$ is transitive.
Therefore relation $\sim$ on $X$, which was already reflexive, is both symmetric and transitive as well. Hence $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $X$.
Am I right?
Are all of the above proofs correct and clear enough? If not, then where are the problems?
It all looks correct! It could be clearer, though. Let me go through and make some suggestions.
You've got exactly the right idea. I'd go about it this way:
There's nothing wrong with your approach, but it can be nice to announce your goals, and to use the terminology over symbols.
Again, you're going in exactly the right direction, but I'd do it a bit differently.
I'd probably do this differently, too.
Suppose that $\sim$ is a relation on $X$ that is reflexive and triangular. We show that $\sim$ is symmetric and transitive, so that $X$ is an equivalence relation on $X.$
To show symmetry, take $x,y\in X$ such that $x\sim y.$ By reflexivity, we also have $x\sim x,$ so by triangularity we have $y\sim x,$ as desired.
To show transitivity, take $x,y,z\in X$ such that $x\sim y$ and $y\sim z.$ By symmetry, we have $y\sim x,$ so since $y\sim z,$ then by triangularity we have $x\sim z,$ as desired.