Equivalence relation and the quotient set
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Good day everyone,
let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).
Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.
abstract-algebra
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Good day everyone,
let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).
Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.
abstract-algebra
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Good day everyone,
let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).
Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.
abstract-algebra
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
Good day everyone,
let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).
Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.
abstract-algebra
abstract-algebra
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
edited Nov 18 at 9:41
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
asked Nov 18 at 9:33
archaic
575
575
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
Check This
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
answered Nov 18 at 9:39
Joey Kilpatrick
1,183422
1,183422
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
|
show 2 more comments
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:49
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Am I failing to notice something?
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
– Joey Kilpatrick
Nov 18 at 9:50
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:52
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
Not just that, how to explain ..
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:53
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
answered Nov 18 at 9:37
Wuestenfux
2,7471410
2,7471410
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
add a comment |
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
– archaic
Nov 18 at 9:39
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
Check This
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
Check This
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
Check This
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
Check This
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
answered Nov 18 at 9:38
Kato
584
584
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003309%2fequivalence-relation-and-the-quotient-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
