1 / 17

Equivalence Relations

Equivalence Relations. Fractions vs. Rationals. Question: Are 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, 5/10, … the same or different? Answer: They are different symbols that stand for the same rational number.

rene
Download Presentation

Equivalence Relations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Equivalence Relations

  2. Fractions vs. Rationals Question: Are 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, 5/10, … the same or different? Answer: They are different symbolsthat stand for the same rational number. When algebraists have a set of objects and wish to think of more than one of them as the same object, they define an equivalence relation.

  3. Familiar Equivalence Relations • From arithmetic: Equals (=) • From logic: If and only if (<=>)

  4. In this session we will: • Carefully define the notion of an equivalence relation • Show how an equivalence relation gives rise to equivalence classes • Give an important example of an equivalence relation and its classes.

  5. Definition • An equivalence relation on a set S is a set R of ordered pairs of elements of S such that Reflexive Symmetric Transitive

  6. Properties of Equivalence Relations a b a Reflexive Symmetric a b c Transitive

  7. Notation • Given a relation R, we usually write a R b instead of • For example: x = 1 instead of instead of

  8. Properties Revisited • ~ is an equivalence relation on S if ~ is: • Reflexive: a~a for all a in S • Symmetric: a~b implies b~a for all a, b in S • Transitive: a~b and b~c implies a~c for all a,b,c in S

  9. Is equality an equivalence relation on the integers? • a = a for all a in Z • a = b implies b = a for all a,b in Z • a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a,b,c, in Z. • = is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive So = is an equivalence relation on Z!

  10. Is ≤ an equivalence relation on the integers? • 1 ≤ 2, but 2 ≤ 1, so ≤ is not symmetric Hence, ≤ is not an equivalence relation on Z. • (Note that ≤ is reflexive and transitive.)

  11. Say a ~ b if 2 | a – b • Choose any integer a. 2 | 0 = a – a, so a~ a for all a. (~ is reflexive) • Choose any integers a, b with a ~ b. 2 | a–b so a–b = 2n for some integer n. Then b–a = 2(–n), and 2 | b–a. Hence b ~ a. (~ is symmetric)

  12. a ~ b if 2 | a – b (Con't) • Choose any integers a, b, c with a~b and b~c. • Now 2 | a–b and 2 | b–c means that there exist integers m and n such that a–b = 2m and b–c = 2n. a–c = a–b + b–c = 2m + 2n = 2(m + n) So 2 | a–c. Hence a~c. ~ is transitive. • Since ~ is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive ~ is an equivalence relation on the integers.

  13. Equivalence Classes • Let ~ be given by a ~ b if 2 | a–b. • Let [n] be the set of all integers related to n • [0] = { …-4, -2, 0, 2, 4 …} • [1] = { …-3, -1, 1, 3, 5 …} • There are many different names for these equivalence classes, but only two distinct equivalence classes. Even Odd

  14. Theorem 0.6 (paraphrased) • Every equivalence relation R on a set S partitions S into disjoint equivalence classes. • Conversely, every partition of S defines an equivalence relation on S whose equivalence classes are precisely the sets of the partition.

  15. Example 14 (my version) • Let S = {(a,b) | a,b are integers, b≠0} • Define (a,b) ~ (c,d) if ad–bc = 0 • Show ~ is an equivalence relation. • For (a,b) in S, ab–ba = 0, so (a,b)~(a,b). Hence ~ is reflexive. • (a,b)~(c,d) implies ad–bc = 0 so cb–da = 0 which implies (c,d)~(a,b) Hence ~ is symmetric.

  16. Example 14 (con't) Suppose (a,b)~(c,d) and (c,d)~(e,f), where b,d, and f are not zero. Then ad–bc = 0 and cf–de = 0. It follows that (ad–bc)f + b(cf–de) = 0 So 0 = adf – bcf + bcf – bde = d(af – be) Since d ≠ 0, af–be = 0 Hence (a,e) ~ (f,b), and ~ is transitive. Since ~ is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, ~ is an equivalence relation.

  17. The equivalence classes of ~ • [(1,2)] = [(2,4)] = [(3,6)] = [(4,8)] = … • [(3,4)] = [(6,8)] = [(9,12)] = … • Replace commas by slashes and drop the parentheses to get: • 1/2 = 2/4 = 3/6 = 4/8 = … • 3/4 = 6/8 = 9/12 = … • Each rational number is an equivalence class of ~ on the set of fractions!

More Related