DOCSLIB.ORG

Equivalence Relations ¡ Definition: a Relation on a Set Is Called an Equivalence Relation If It Is Reflexive, Symmetric, and Transitive

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Equivalence Relations ¡ Definition: a Relation on a Set Is Called an Equivalence Relation If It Is Reflexive, Symmetric, and Transitive Equivalence Relations ¡ Definition: A relation on a set is called an equivalence relation if it is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. Recall the definitions: ¢ ¡ ¤ ¤ ¨ ¦ reflexive: £¥¤ §©¨ for all . ¢ ¡ ¤ ¤ ¨ ¨ ¦ ¦ ¦ £ § symmetric: £¥¤ §©¨ when , for . ¢ ¤ ¤ ¨ ¨ ¦ ¦ ¦ £ § transitive: £ §©¨ and £ § implies , ¡ ¤ ¨ for ¦ ¦ . If two elements are related by an equivalence relation, they are said to be equivalent. 1 Examples 1. Let be the relation on the set of English words such that if and only if starts with the same letter as . Then is an equivalence relation. 2. Let be the relation on the set of all human beings such that if and only if was born in the same country as . Then is an equivalence relation. 3. Let be the relation on the set of all human beings such that if and only if owns the same color car as . Then is an not equivalence relation. 2 ¤ Pr is Let ¢ ¢ an oof: is If Since Thus, equi ¤ symmetric. is By refle v ¤ alence definition, be , Congruence for xi ¤ a ¤ v positi e. some relation. £ , ¤ v then e inte £ ¤ § inte ¦ ¤ ger , § , and ger we ¤ 3 . we ha Then Modulo Using v e ha if that v the and , e this,we for ¤ relation only some ¤ ¤ proceed: if inte ger , , so and . Therefore, ¢ ¤ and If ¤ ¤ we congruence ha v e £ ¤ ¤ and , and §"! modulo £ 4 , § and , for is an inte ! is equi , then gers transiti v alence we and v £ ha e. ! v relation e . Thus, § ¦ ¡ Definition: Let be an equivalence relation on a set . The equivalence class of¤ is ¤ ¤ ¨ % ¦ £ § # $ '& ¤ % In words, # $ is the set of all elements that are related to the ¡ ¤ element ¨ . If the relation is clear, we can omit the ¤ ¤ % # $ subscript (i.e. # $ instead of ). ¤ ¨ % If # $ , then is called a representative of the equivalence class. 5 Examples Continued 1. The equivalence class of Xenon is all words starting with the letter X. That is, is an English word starting with the letter X # Xenon $ 2. The equivalence class of Chuck Cusack is all people born in the United States of America. That is, ¡ ¡ is a person that was born in the U.S.A. $ # Chuck Cusack 6 ¤ Thus, The # $ ( . congruence Example: #*2 $43 # #*) $ 0 $ + class # Congruence $43 & '& & of & & & an ¦ & ¦ & & inte , 1 ¦ ¦ 7 ¦ ger . , - Classes ¦ ¦ ¤ ) ¦ ) ¦/. ¦/. modulo ¦ ¦ ¦ ) ¦ 2 1 Modulo & ¦ & ¦/5 ¦ & & & & & ¦ & & is denoted by Equivalence Classes and Partitions ¡ Theorem 1: Let be an equivalence relation on a set . The following statements are equivalent: & - & & ¤ ¤ ¤ ) 9 8 # $ # $ # $76 # $ - - ) ) : : Proof: Show that : , , and . Notice that this theorem says that if the intersection of two equivalence classes is not empty, then they are equal. That is, two equivalence classes are either equal or disjoint. 8 of ( Definition: nonempty > is ; ¡ ¡ A is an < < < 8 6 B C a inde collections ¡ ¡ 9 subsets < ? A for x set. partition ; & ¨ = 9 ¦ F of when or > of , ; e subsets whose xample, of = 8 a set @ ¦ 9 union ¡ and ; often < , is ¨ = a is > collection > ; such . That ¦ that - & is, ¦ & of & a disjoint ¦ D partition .) ; Theorem 2: Let be an equivalence relation on a set . Then the equivalence classes of form a partition of ; . ¡ > = ; ¨ < Conversely, given a partition of the set , there > ¡ = ¨ is an equivalence relation that has the sets < , , as its equivalence classes. Proof (informal): The equivalence classes of an equivalence ¤ ¤ ¨ % relation are nonempty (since # $ ), and by Theorem 1 are disjoint. Since every element of the set ; is in some ¤ ¤ ¨ % equivalence class (e.g. # $ ), the equivalence classes partition ; . 10 the Define No some Example: (Proof w equi , assume = . of a v It relation alence Theorem is W not e we EGF can E E E7X E U Z P classes +JI H hard +\I +JI +JI +SI H H H H on ha partition 2, v ; e K7L to K7L K7L K7L K7L continued) L a by L L L L L modulo L L L L see partition ¤ MON M M M M N N N N V [ that the P Y T F MON MON MON MON 11 M N if 2 set X this U Z P and Q M M M M as X M U Z P F ¡ of M M MW[ MWV is M follo < Y T only Q inte M M M M M an P P P P ¨ = X P U Z F P ws: L L L L M M M M gers equi L M if L L L L L L L L L > ¤ L R R7L R R R ¦ v M M M according of M ¨ alence a ¡ set < for relation ; . to w English Example: same ords letter as w follo ords _ ¤ # #ed # as Let = $ ^ f ¤` ws: $ defined . $ Then be & & & the we by ¤ d equi ^ ^ ¦ _ can ¤ ¦ D] ¤ v = 12 a alence partition ¦ ¦ ¤ d ¦ _ if ` D ^ and ^ ` ¤ ¦ d ¦ ¤ relation = only ¦ _ f ^ the ¦ d & ¦ bc b & if set & b D & ¦ on & & ¦ of & ¦ & starts & the & English ¦ set with of the.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Math 296. Homework 3 (Due Jan 28) 1
    Math 296. Homework 3 (due Jan 28) 1. Equivalence Classes. Let R be an equivalence relation on a set X. For each x ∈ X, consider the subset xR ⊂ X consisting of all the elements y in X such that xRy. A set of the form xR is called an equivalence class. (1) Show that xR = yR (as subsets of X) if and only if xRy. (2) Show that xR ∩ yR = ∅ or xR = yR. (3) Show that there is a subset Y (called equivalence classes representatives) of X such that X is the disjoint union of subsets of the form yR for y ∈ Y . Is the set Y uniquely determined? (4) For each of the equivalence relations from Problem Set 2, Exercise 5, Parts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8: describe the equivalence classes, find a way to enumerate them by picking a nice representative for each, and find the cardinality of the set of equivalence classes. [I will ask Ruthi to discuss this a bit in the discussion session.] 2. Pliability of Smooth Functions. This problem undertakes a very fundamental construction: to prove that ∞ −1/x2 C -functions are very soft and pliable. Let F : R → R be defined by F (x) = e for x 6= 0 and F (0) = 0. (1) Verify that F is infinitely differentiable at every point (don’t forget that you computed on a 295 problem set that the k-th derivative exists and is zero, for all k ≥ 1). −1/x2 ∞ (2) Let ϕ : R → R be defined by ϕ(x) = 0 for x ≤ 0 and ϕ(x) = e for x > 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory
    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
    [Show full text]
  • General Topology
    General Topology Tom Leinster 2014{15 Contents A Topological spaces2 A1 Review of metric spaces.......................2 A2 The definition of topological space.................8 A3 Metrics versus topologies....................... 13 A4 Continuous maps........................... 17 A5 When are two spaces homeomorphic?................ 22 A6 Topological properties........................ 26 A7 Bases................................. 28 A8 Closure and interior......................... 31 A9 Subspaces (new spaces from old, 1)................. 35 A10 Products (new spaces from old, 2)................. 39 A11 Quotients (new spaces from old, 3)................. 43 A12 Review of ChapterA......................... 48 B Compactness 51 B1 The definition of compactness.................... 51 B2 Closed bounded intervals are compact............... 55 B3 Compactness and subspaces..................... 56 B4 Compactness and products..................... 58 B5 The compact subsets of Rn ..................... 59 B6 Compactness and quotients (and images)............. 61 B7 Compact metric spaces........................ 64 C Connectedness 68 C1 The definition of connectedness................... 68 C2 Connected subsets of the real line.................. 72 C3 Path-connectedness.......................... 76 C4 Connected-components and path-components........... 80 1 Chapter A Topological spaces A1 Review of metric spaces For the lecture of Thursday, 18 September 2014 Almost everything in this section should have been covered in Honours Analysis, with the possible exception of some of the examples. For that reason, this lecture is longer than usual. Definition A1.1 Let X be a set. A metric on X is a function d: X × X ! [0; 1) with the following three properties: • d(x; y) = 0 () x = y, for x; y 2 X; • d(x; y) + d(y; z) ≥ d(x; z) for all x; y; z 2 X (triangle inequality); • d(x; y) = d(y; x) for all x; y 2 X (symmetry).
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Localization
    52 Andreas Gathmann 6. Localization Localization is a very powerful technique in commutative algebra that often allows to reduce ques- tions on rings and modules to a union of smaller “local” problems. It can easily be motivated both from an algebraic and a geometric point of view, so let us start by explaining the idea behind it in these two settings. Remark 6.1 (Motivation for localization). (a) Algebraic motivation: Let R be a ring which is not a field, i. e. in which not all non-zero elements are units. The algebraic idea of localization is then to make more (or even all) non-zero elements invertible by introducing fractions, in the same way as one passes from the integers Z to the rational numbers Q. Let us have a more precise look at this particular example: in order to construct the rational numbers from the integers we start with R = Z, and let S = Znf0g be the subset of the elements of R that we would like to become invertible. On the set R×S we then consider the equivalence relation (a;s) ∼ (a0;s0) , as0 − a0s = 0 a and denote the equivalence class of a pair (a;s) by s . The set of these “fractions” is then obviously Q, and we can define addition and multiplication on it in the expected way by a a0 as0+a0s a a0 aa0 s + s0 := ss0 and s · s0 := ss0 . (b) Geometric motivation: Now let R = A(X) be the ring of polynomial functions on a variety X. In the same way as in (a) we can ask if it makes sense to consider fractions of such polynomials, i.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Abstract Algebra (Math 113)
    Introduction to Abstract Algebra (Math 113) Alexander Paulin, with edits by David Corwin FOR FALL 2019 MATH 113 002 ONLY Contents 1 Introduction 4 1.1 What is Algebra? . 4 1.2 Sets . 6 1.3 Functions . 9 1.4 Equivalence Relations . 12 2 The Structure of + and × on Z 15 2.1 Basic Observations . 15 2.2 Factorization and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic . 17 2.3 Congruences . 20 3 Groups 23 1 3.1 Basic Definitions . 23 3.1.1 Cayley Tables for Binary Operations and Groups . 28 3.2 Subgroups, Cosets and Lagrange's Theorem . 30 3.3 Generating Sets for Groups . 35 3.4 Permutation Groups and Finite Symmetric Groups . 40 3.4.1 Active vs. Passive Notation for Permutations . 40 3.4.2 The Symmetric Group Sym3 . 43 3.4.3 Symmetric Groups in General . 44 3.5 Group Actions . 52 3.5.1 The Orbit-Stabiliser Theorem . 55 3.5.2 Centralizers and Conjugacy Classes . 59 3.5.3 Sylow's Theorem . 66 3.6 Symmetry of Sets with Extra Structure . 68 3.7 Normal Subgroups and Isomorphism Theorems . 73 3.8 Direct Products and Direct Sums . 83 3.9 Finitely Generated Abelian Groups . 85 3.10 Finite Abelian Groups . 90 3.11 The Classification of Finite Groups (Proofs Omitted) . 95 4 Rings, Ideals, and Homomorphisms 100 2 4.1 Basic Definitions . 100 4.2 Ideals, Quotient Rings and the First Isomorphism Theorem for Rings . 105 4.3 Properties of Elements of Rings . 109 4.4 Polynomial Rings . 112 4.5 Ring Extensions . 115 4.6 Field of Fractions .
    [Show full text]
  • Mereology Then and Now
    Logic and Logical Philosophy Volume 24 (2015), 409–427 DOI: 10.12775/LLP.2015.024 Rafał Gruszczyński Achille C. Varzi MEREOLOGY THEN AND NOW Abstract. This paper offers a critical reconstruction of the motivations that led to the development of mereology as we know it today, along with a brief description of some questions that define current research in the field. Keywords: mereology; parthood; formal ontology; foundations of mathe- matics 1. Introduction Understood as a general theory of parts and wholes, mereology has a long history that can be traced back to the early days of philosophy. As a formal theory of the part-whole relation or rather, as a theory of the relations of part to whole and of part to part within a whole it is relatively recent and came to us mainly through the writings of Edmund Husserl and Stanisław Leśniewski. The former were part of a larger project aimed at the development of a general framework for formal ontology; the latter were inspired by a desire to provide a nominalistically acceptable alternative to set theory as a foundation for mathematics. (The name itself, ‘mereology’ after the Greek word ‘µρoς’, ‘part’ was coined by Leśniewski [31].) As it turns out, both sorts of motivation failed to quite live up to expectations. Yet mereology survived as a theory in its own right and continued to flourish, often in unexpected ways. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that today mereology is a central and powerful area of research in philosophy and philosophical logic. It may be helpful, therefore, to take stock and reconsider its origins.
    [Show full text]
  • Commutative Algebra
    Commutative Algebra Andrew Kobin Spring 2016 / 2019 Contents Contents Contents 1 Preliminaries 1 1.1 Radicals . .1 1.2 Nakayama's Lemma and Consequences . .4 1.3 Localization . .5 1.4 Transcendence Degree . 10 2 Integral Dependence 14 2.1 Integral Extensions of Rings . 14 2.2 Integrality and Field Extensions . 18 2.3 Integrality, Ideals and Localization . 21 2.4 Normalization . 28 2.5 Valuation Rings . 32 2.6 Dimension and Transcendence Degree . 33 3 Noetherian and Artinian Rings 37 3.1 Ascending and Descending Chains . 37 3.2 Composition Series . 40 3.3 Noetherian Rings . 42 3.4 Primary Decomposition . 46 3.5 Artinian Rings . 53 3.6 Associated Primes . 56 4 Discrete Valuations and Dedekind Domains 60 4.1 Discrete Valuation Rings . 60 4.2 Dedekind Domains . 64 4.3 Fractional and Invertible Ideals . 65 4.4 The Class Group . 70 4.5 Dedekind Domains in Extensions . 72 5 Completion and Filtration 76 5.1 Topological Abelian Groups and Completion . 76 5.2 Inverse Limits . 78 5.3 Topological Rings and Module Filtrations . 82 5.4 Graded Rings and Modules . 84 6 Dimension Theory 89 6.1 Hilbert Functions . 89 6.2 Local Noetherian Rings . 94 6.3 Complete Local Rings . 98 7 Singularities 106 7.1 Derived Functors . 106 7.2 Regular Sequences and the Koszul Complex . 109 7.3 Projective Dimension . 114 i Contents Contents 7.4 Depth and Cohen-Macauley Rings . 118 7.5 Gorenstein Rings . 127 8 Algebraic Geometry 133 8.1 Affine Algebraic Varieties . 133 8.2 Morphisms of Affine Varieties . 142 8.3 Sheaves of Functions .
    [Show full text]
  • Algebra Notes Sept
    Algebra Notes Sept. 16: Fields of Fractions and Homomorphisms Geoffrey Scott Today, we discuss two topics. The first topic is a way to enlarge a ring by introducing new elements that act as multiplicative inverses of non-units, just like making fractions of integers enlarges Z into Q. The second topic will be the concept of a ring homomorphism, which is a map between rings that preserves the addition and multiplication operations. Fields of Fractions Most integers don't have integer inverses. This is annoying, because it means we can't even solve linear equations like 2x = 5 in the ring Z. One popular way to resolve this issue is to work in Q instead, where the solution is x = 5=2. Because Q is a field, we can solve any equation −1 ax = b with a; b 2 Q and a 6= 0 by multiplying both sides of the equation by a (guaranteed −1 to exist because Q is a field), obtaining a b (often written a=b). Now suppose we want to solve ax = b, but instead of a and b being integers, they are elements of some ring R. Can we always find a field that contains R so that we multiply both sides by a−1 (in other words, \divide" by a), thereby solving ax = b in this larger field? To start, let's assume that R is a commutative ring with identity. If we try to enlarge R into a field in the most naive way possible, using as inspiration the way we enlarge Z into Q, we might try the following definition.
    [Show full text]
  • 06. Naive Set Theory I
    Topics 06. Naive Set Theory I. Sets and Paradoxes of the Infinitely Big II. Naive Set Theory I. Sets and Paradoxes of the Infinitely Big III. Cantor and Diagonal Arguments Recall: Paradox of the Even Numbers Claim: There are just as many even natural numbers as natural numbers natural numbers = non-negative whole numbers (0, 1, 2, ..) Proof: { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , ............ , n , ..........} { 0 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , ............ , 2n , ..........} In general: 2 criteria for comparing sizes of sets: (1) Correlation criterion: Can members of one set be paired with members of the other? (2) Subset criterion: Do members of one set belong to the other? Can now say: (a) There are as many even naturals as naturals in the correlation sense. (b) There are less even naturals than naturals in the subset sense. To talk about the infinitely Moral: notion of sets big, just need to be clear makes this clear about what’s meant by size Bolzano (1781-1848) Promoted idea that notion of infinity was fundamentally set-theoretic: To say something is infinite is “God is infinite in knowledge” just to say there is some set means with infinite members “The set of truths known by God has infinitely many members” SO: Are there infinite sets? “a many thought of as a one” -Cantor Bolzano: Claim: The set of truths is infinite. Proof: Let p1 be a truth (ex: “Plato was Greek”) Let p2 be the truth “p1 is a truth”. Let p3 be the truth “p3 is a truth”. In general, let pn be the truth “pn-1 is a truth”, for any natural number n.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 127: Equivalence Relations
    Math 127: Equivalence Relations Mary Radcliffe 1 Equivalence Relations Relations can take many forms in mathematics. In these notes, we focus especially on equivalence relations, but there are many other types of relations (such as order relations) that exist. Definition 1. Let X; Y be sets. A relation R = R(x; y) is a logical formula for which x takes the range of X and y takes the range of Y , sometimes called a relation from X to Y . If R(x; y) is true, we say that x is related to y by R, and we write xRy to indicate that x is related to y by R. Example 1. Let f : X ! Y be a function. We can define a relation R by R(x; y) ≡ (f(x) = y). Example 2. Let X = Y = Z. We can define a relation R by R(a; b) ≡ ajb. There are many other examples at hand, such as ordering on R, multiples in Z, coprimality relationships, etc. The definition we have here is simply that a relation gives some way to connect two elements to each other, that can either be true or false. Of course, that's not a very useful thing, so let's add some conditions to make the relation carry more meaning. For this, we shall focus on relations from X to X, also called relations on X. There are several properties that will be interesting in considering relations: Definition 2. Let X be a set, and let ∼ be a relation on X. • We say that ∼ is reflexive if x ∼ x 8x 2 X.
    [Show full text]
  • Jorgensen's Chapter 6
    Chapter 6 Equivalence Class Testing Software Testing: A Craftsman’s Approach, 4th Edition Chapter 6 Equivalence Class Testing Outline • Motivation. Why bother? • Equivalence Relations and their consequences • “Traditional” Equivalence Class Testing • Four Variations of Equivalence Class Testing • Examples Software Testing: A Craftsman’s Approach, 4th Edition Chapter 6 Equivalence Class Testing Motivation • In chapter 5, we saw that all four variations of boundary value testing are vulnerable to – gaps of untested functionality, and – significant redundancy, that results in extra effort • The mathematical notion of an equivalence class can potentially help this because – members of a class should be “treated the same” by a program – equivalence classes form a partition of the input space • Recall (from chapter 3) that a partition deals explicitly with – redundancy (elements of a partition are disjoint) – gaps (the union of all partition elements is the full input space) Software Testing: A Craftsman’s Approach, 4th Edition Chapter 6 Equivalence Class Testing Motivation (continued) • If you were testing the Triangle Program, would you use these test cases? – (3, 3, 3), (10, 10, 10), (187, 187, 187) • In Chapter 5, the normal boundary value test cases covered June 15 in five different years. Does this make any sense? • Equivalence class testing provides an elegant strategy to resolve such awkward situations. Software Testing: A Craftsman’s Approach, 4th Edition Chapter 6 Equivalence Class Testing Equivalence Class Testing F Domain Range
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Orderings, Ordinals and Well-Founded Relations. an Ancient
    Well-orderings, ordinals and well-founded relations. An ancient principle of arithmetic, that if there is a non-negative integer with some property then there is a least such, is useful in two ways: as a source of proofs, which are then said to be \by induction" and as as a source of definitions, then said to be \by recursion." An early use of induction is in Euclid's proof that every integer > 2 is a product of primes, (where we take \prime" to mean \having no divisors other than itself and 1"): if some number is not, then let n¯ be the least counter-example. If not itself prime, it can be written as a product m1m2 of two strictly smaller numbers each > 2; but then each of those is a product of primes, by the minimality of n¯; putting those two products together expresses n¯ as a product of primes. Contradiction ! An example of definition by recursion: we set 0! = 1; (n + 1)! = n! × (n + 1): A function defined for all non-negative integers is thereby uniquely specified; in detail, we consider an attempt to be a function, defined on a finite initial segment of the non-negative integers, which agrees with the given definition as far as it goes; if some integer is not in the domain of any attempt, there will be a least such; it cannot be 0; if it is n + 1, the recursion equation tells us how to extend an attempt defined at n to one defined at n + 1. So no such failure exists; we check that if f and g are two attempts and both f(n) and g(n) are defined, then f(n) = g(n), by considering the least n where that might fail, and again reaching a contradiction; and so, there being no disagreement between any two attempts, the union of all attempts will be a well-defined function, which is familiar to us as the factorial function.
    [Show full text]