Just needs checking please (Sets and Relations)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Natasha1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of a relation defined on the Cartesian product of natural numbers, specifically focusing on equivalence relations and their classes. The original poster explores ordered pairs and their relationships under defined operations, questioning how these relate to integers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to identify ordered pairs in the equivalence class of (2,6) and questions the representation of equivalence classes for integers 0, -1, and +1. They also explore the implications of defined operations on these pairs, questioning the generality of their findings.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's work, providing feedback on the representation of equivalence classes and the necessity of generalizing results for arbitrary elements. There is a focus on ensuring clarity and correctness in the mathematical reasoning presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential issues with the definitions used, particularly regarding the set of natural numbers and the implications of specific examples chosen for multiplication and addition of ordered pairs.

Natasha1
Messages
494
Reaction score
9
MY WORK FOLLOWS BELOW THE QUESTIONS

Let AxB be the set of ordered pairs (a,b) where a and b belong to the set of natural numbers N.

A relation p: AxB ----> AxB is defined by: (a,b)p(c,d) <-----> a+d = b+c

As p is an equivalence relation there are associated equivalence classes.

(iv) Find all the ordered pairs in the equivalence class of (2,6). Why could this equivalence class be identified with the integer -4?

(v) Give the equivalence classes (as sets of ordered pairs) defined by p for each of the integers: 0, -1 and +1

(vi) Consider two general ordered pairs, (a,b) and (c,d). If addition is defined by (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) and multiplication is defined by (a,b) x (c,d) = (ac+bd, ad+bc), show that these definitions provide a way of demonstrating that (+1) + (-1) = 0 and (-1) x (-1) = (+1)

HERE IS MY WORK

(iv) The ordered pairs of the equivalence class (2,6) are infinite i.e. (4,8) or (6,10) so to find the general term let's write the condition as follows: a - b = c - d (so that the values of one pair appear on the left and the values of the other on the right). Here a - b = 2 - 6 = -4. Therefore any pair (c,d) with c-d = -4 (or d-c = 4) is also related.

(v) The set of ordered pairs are:

0 ----------> (a,a) where b=a

-1 ---------> (a-1, a) where b=a+1 or should I write like this instead (a, a+1)? Not sure let me know

+1 ---------> (a+1, a) where b=a-1 or should I write like this instead (a, a-1)? Not sure let me know

(vi) Let's consider 2 pairs say (2,3) and (6,7) which are as seen previously have an integer of -1 then if the multiplication of two orderd pairs is defined by (a,b) x (c,d) = (ac+bd, ad+bc) then

(2,3) x (6,7) = (12+21,14+18) = (33,32) which is has as seen in the previous question an integer of +1

Hence -1 x -1 = +1

Again, if we choose 1 pair say (33, 32) with an integer of +1 and the pair (5,6) with an integer value of -1 then the addition of two ordered pairs is defined by (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) and we get

(33,32) + (5,6) = (33+5, 32+6) = (38,38) which has an integer value of 0

Hence +1 + -1 = 0

Please correct any of my mistakes anyone... many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Natasha1 said:
...
(v) The set of ordered pairs are:
0 ----------> (a,a) where b=a
-1 ---------> (a-1, a) where b=a+1 or should I write like this instead (a, a+1)? ...
I would write it the second way, since we're dealing with N. If by (a-1,a), you're writing shorthand for the set [itex]\{(a-1, a): a \in \mathbb{N}\}[/itex] then there is no corresponding term for a=0 (or a=1 depending on your definition of N). The next one is fine since adding one to a natural number will never take it out of the set.
Natasha1 said:
(vi) Let's consider 2 pairs say (2,3) and (6,7) which are as seen previously have an integer of -1 then if the multiplication of two orderd pairs is defined by (a,b) x (c,d) = (ac+bd, ad+bc) then
(2,3) x (6,7) = (12+21,14+18) = (33,32) which is has as seen in the previous question an integer of +1
Hence -1 x -1 = +1
This is not enough to show that (-1)x(-1) = (+1). You must show it for an arbitrary element of the equivalence class, not any specific element. This is to show that only the fact that it is in the class (-1) makes it behave this way, and that it is not simply a side effect of the specific pair you picked. You should start off something like "All elements of the class (-1) have the form (a, a+1), so multiplying two arbitrary elements (a, a+1)x(b,b+1) gives us..." and so on. Same for the next question. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Right then,

All elements of the class (-1) have the form (a, a+1), so multiplying two arbitrary elements (a, a+1)x(b,b+1) gives us

(a, a+1)x(b,b+1) = (ab+(a+1)(b+1), a(b+1)+b(a+1))
= (ab+ab+a+b+1, ab+a+ab+b)
= (2ab+a+b+1, 2ab+a+b) which has an integer of +1 (Should I say it like that? how can I end this nicely?)

Hence -1 x -1 = +1

If one element of the class (-1) , which has the form (a, a+1) is added to an element of the class (+1) which has the form (a,a-1) gives us

(a, a+1) + (b,b-1) = (a+b, a+1+b-1)
= (a+b, a+b) which has an integer of 0 (Should I say it like that? how can I end this nicely?)

Hence +1 + -1 = 0
 
Natasha1 said:
Right then,
All elements of the class (-1) have the form (a, a+1), so multiplying two arbitrary elements (a, a+1)x(b,b+1) gives us
(a, a+1)x(b,b+1) = (ab+(a+1)(b+1), a(b+1)+b(a+1))
= (ab+ab+a+b+1, ab+a+ab+b)
= (2ab+a+b+1, 2ab+a+b) which has an integer of +1 (Should I say it like that? how can I end this nicely?)
Well, the last line is enough, but you could clarify by saying that it is of the form (c+1,c) = (+1) where c = 2ab + a + b. You already established earlier that pairs of that form are in the equivalence class (+1), but you can do it again by just noting that (c+1)-c = +1. The same holds for the next question. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K