An equivalence relation is a partition of A?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between equivalence relations and partitions of a set, specifically questioning whether the union of equivalence classes forms a partition of the Cartesian product of a set or just the set itself. The scope includes conceptual clarification and technical reasoning regarding definitions and properties of equivalence relations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the union of equivalence classes should be a partition of \( A \times A \) rather than just \( A \).
  • Another participant clarifies the definition of an equivalence relation and states that equivalence classes partition the set \( X \), not \( X \times X \).
  • Some participants argue that the equivalence classes are subsets of \( X \) and not \( X \times X \), emphasizing that the union of equivalence classes remains within \( X \).
  • There are repeated assertions that the equivalence classes cannot be subsets of \( X \times X \) as they are defined in relation to elements of \( X \).
  • References to university textbooks are made to support claims about the definitions and properties of equivalence relations.
  • One participant expresses confusion but later acknowledges understanding after further discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus; there are competing views on whether the union of equivalence classes forms a partition of \( A \times A \) or just \( A \). Some participants assert that equivalence classes are subsets of \( X \), while others challenge this definition.

Contextual Notes

Definitions and properties of equivalence relations are central to the discussion, with some participants relying on textbook definitions. The discussion highlights potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of equivalence classes and their relationship to Cartesian products.

rashida564
Messages
220
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
equivalent class is a Cartesian product
Hi equivalent class is a Cartesian product of A*A. Then shouldn't it's union be a partition of A*A, instead being a partition of A
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This question doesn't really make sense. Can you try to rephrase it?

Given a (non-empty) set ##X##, an equivalence relation ##R## is a subset ##R \subseteq X \times X## such that

(1) ##(x,x) \in R## for all ##x \in X##
(2) For all ##x,y \in X: (x,y) \in R \implies (y,x) \in R##
(3) For all ##x,y,z \in X: (x,y) \in R, (y,z) \in R \implies (x,z) \in R##

An equivalence class of an element ##x\in X## is then the set of all elements that are in relation with ##x##, i.e. the set ##[x]:=\{y \in X: (x,y) \in R\}##.

It is true though that ##X = \bigcup_{x \in X} [x]## and that every element of ##X## is in precisely one equivalence class. Thus the equivalence classes partition the set ##X##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
Shouldn't their union be X*X where * is the Cartesian product. Think about it this way you have sets of element of (a1,a2). How can you union them and then they give you elements of (a), R is a subsets of X*X, take the union of all the partitions you should get X*X not the set X
 
rashida564 said:
Shouldn't their union be X*X where * is the Cartesian product. Think about it this way you have sets of element of (a1,a2). How can you union them and then they give you elements of (a)

No, the equivalence classes are subsets of ##X##. Recall that the equivalence class of ##x## is the subset ##\{y \in X: (x,y) \in R\} \subseteq X##. This is a subset of ##X## (by definition!), not of ##X \times X##. Thus any union of such sets remains in ##X##.
 
From my university textbook
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    6.7 KB · Views: 275
rashida564 said:
From my university textbook

Yes, this is true. But I say that the union of the equivalence classes partition ##X##. Just look carefully at the definitions I wrote down.
 
Math_QED said:
No, the equivalence classes are subsets of ##X##.
But they aren't they are subset of X*X
 
rashida564 said:
But they aren't they are subset of X*X

What is the definition of equivalence class?
 
Equivalence classes now I see thx
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K