Let X be a set. A partition of X is a subset

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter laminatedevildoll
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Partition Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical concept of partitions in set theory, specifically how a partition of a set X can be represented as a subset π of the power set P(X). It establishes that if R is an equivalence relation on X, then the collection of equivalence classes π_R = {R(x): x ∈ X} forms a partition. The proof requires demonstrating that R_π is an equivalence relation by verifying reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity, and confirming that π_(R_π) = π and R_(π_R) = R.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and partitions
  • Familiarity with equivalence relations
  • Knowledge of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity properties
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations in depth
  • Learn about the power set and its applications in set theory
  • Explore the concept of partitions and their significance in mathematics
  • Practice constructing mathematical proofs involving set relations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in advanced set theory concepts will benefit from this discussion.

laminatedevildoll
Messages
211
Reaction score
0
Let X be a set. A partition of X is a subset [tex]\pi \subseteq P(X)[/tex] so

that for every [tex]x \in X[/tex] there is precisely one [tex]A \in \pi[/tex] so

that [tex]x\in A[/tex]. If R is an equivalence relation on X, then

[tex]\pi_R = {R(x): x \in X}[/tex]is a partition.

If [tex]\pi[/tex] is partition of X then

[tex]R_\pi= \bigcup[/tex] [tex]A[/tex] x [tex]A[/tex] is an equivalence

relation, where

[tex]A\in \pi[/tex] Furthermore,

[tex]\pi_(R_\pi)=\pi[/tex] where [tex]\pi_(R_\pi)[/tex] (pi sub R sub pi)

[tex]R_(\pi_R)= R[/tex]

To prove this theorem, I have started out by proving that [tex]R_\pi[/tex] is

an equivalence relation, for reflexitivity, symmetry, and transitivity. In order

to complete the proof, do I need to prove [tex]\pi_(R_\pi)=\pi[/tex]

[tex]R_(\pi_R)= R[/tex]

Do I do that by using the following conditions?

1. [tex]x \in R(X)[/tex] for each [tex]x \in X[/tex]

2. If [tex]y \in R(x)[/tex], then [tex]x \in R(y)[/tex]

3. If [tex]R(x) \cap R(y) \noteq \empty[/tex], then [tex]R(x)= R(y)[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your two statements (which are two be proved) can be interpreted as,
1. Given that R is an equivalence relation, show that the collection of relative sets R(x) form a partition
2. Given that P(pi) is a partition, show that the above described relation is an equivalence relation.

So yes, i guess you need to show these statements as true.
The conditions you want to use will be useful but just remember the three properties of equivalence relation and use whatever you can accordingly.

-- AI
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
838
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K