I have a counterexample of the following statement but I am not sure if it is correct:
Suppose $R_1$ and $R_2$ are relations on A. If $R_1$ and $R_2$ are transitive, then $R_1 \cup R_2$ is transitive. Prove or provide a counterexample.
To me, this is of the form:
If:
$$((x,y)\in R_1 \land (y,z) \in R_1 \implies (x,z)\in R_1) \land ((x,y)\in R_2 \land (y,z) \in R_2 \implies (x,z)\in R_2) $$
Then:
$$ ((x,y)\in R_1 \lor (x,y) \in R_2) \land ((y,z)\in R_1 \lor (y,z)\in R_2) \implies ((x,z)\in R_1 \lor (x,z)\in R_2) $$
My counterexample:
\begin{align*} A&=\{ 1,2,3\} \\ R_1&= \{(1,2)\} \\ R_2&= \{(2,3)\} \end{align*}
Then if we take $x=1,y=2,z=3$, it should yield the following:
If:
$$(\underbrace{(x,y)\in R_1 \land (y,z) \in R_1}_{\text{false}} \implies \underbrace{(x,z)\in R_1}_{\text{false}}) \land (\underbrace{(x,y)\in R_2 \land (y,z) \in R_2}_{\text{false}} \implies \underbrace{(x,z)\in R_2}_{\text{false}}) $$
Then:
$$ (\underbrace{(x,y)\in R_1 \lor (x,y) \in R_2)}_{\text{true}} \land (\underbrace{(y,z)\in R_1 \lor (y,z)\in R_2)}_{\text{true}} \implies (\underbrace{(x,z)\in R_1 \lor (x,z)\in R_2}_{\text{false}}) $$
I know it's a mess, but it's the best I can do to illustrate my idea clearly. Could anyone please help? Thank you so much!
As noted in the comments, your counterexample is perfectly valid, though you seem to overthink a bit. All you need to note are the following:
Thus the union of transitive relations is not necessarily transitive. (In fact, even if $R_1,R_2$ are equivalence relations, their union still need not be one, and need not even be transitive, as you can see explained here.)
Mostly just posting this to get this out of the unanswered queue. Posting as Community Wiki in particular since I have nothing further to add.