Why don't we want to define equals() in Comparator interface...........

Question

Comparator interface has two methods: compare() & equals(). If we implement Comparator in our class(not abstract) itz unnecessary to define equals(). Why? (If we implement an interface we should define all its methods inside the class where we implement it)....

Answer 1

It all hinges on what the type of Object is. Is it
of type Comparator or the parameter you expect to be
passed to compareTo?
I say that Comparator makes the most sense to me.
If you read Joshua Bloch's stuff about Comparable, he
says it's very important to make sure that compareTo
obeys the same contract as equals for that object.
Why would you want to try overriding the behavior
that might already exist in the Object that's the
parameter for compareTo? That would be bad design,
IMO. You might change the intentions of the person
who wrote that class.
%the docs say it's for comparing Comparators.
from the docs:
Additionally, this method can return true only if the specified Object is also a comparator and it imposes the same ordering as this comparator
I read that to mean that the compared objects should both be Comparators (obviously) and both result in the same ordering. seems to me the method is declared on this interface to draw attention to this addition to the contract, as much as anything else