Definition of 'compatible' operation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the formal definition of "compatible" operations in the context of a monoid and an equivalence relation. Participants explore the implications of compatibility for defining operations on quotient structures, specifically relating to congruence relations in algebraic structures.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines an equivalence relation R on a monoid (M,+) and questions the formal meaning of compatibility of the operation + with R.
  • Another participant explains that compatibility allows for the definition of a new operation on the quotient M/R, where the operation on equivalence classes is independent of the choice of representatives.
  • A participant inquires whether compatibility implies that R must be a congruence relation on (M,+).
  • A subsequent response confirms that a congruence relation is indeed an equivalence relation compatible with all operations of the algebra, providing a formal definition related to universal algebra.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the relationship between compatibility and congruence relations, with no significant disagreement noted in the responses.

Contextual Notes

The discussion assumes familiarity with concepts such as monoids, equivalence relations, and universal algebra, which may limit accessibility for those outside these areas.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,
given a monoid (M,+)
I define an equivalence relation R on (M,+)

My question is: what does it mean formally that "the operation + is compatible with the equivalence relation R" ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It means that you can define an operation " +' " on M/R, using the "+" already defined on M by:

[a] +' := [a + b]

Where [x] is the x's equivalence class. Note that you may always "sum" two equivalence classes as above, but when "+" is compatible with R, then the result is independent of the representatives, that is, if:

[a] = [a'], = [b']

Then:

[a] +' = [a'] +' [b'] = [a + b] = [a' + b']
 
Ok! Thanks a lot.
Is that equivalent to say that R must be a congruence relation on (M,+)?
 
Yes.

A congruence relation on a universal algebra is defined to be an equivalence relation that is compatible in a similar sense to the above with each of its operations.

Specifically if [itex]\mathcal{A}[/itex] is a universal algebra with a system of operations [itex]\Omega[/itex], then an equivalence relation [itex]E[/itex] on [itex]\mathcal{A}[/itex] is a congruence iff
[tex]{(\forall\omega\in\Omega)(\forall a_i,a_i'\in\mathcal{A})a_iEa_i'\Rightarrow a_{i_1}a_{i_2}...a_{i_n}\omega E a_{i_1}'a_{i_2}'...a_{i_n}'\omega\text{ where }\omega\text{ is an }n\text{-ary operation.}}[/tex]
For nullary operations this necessarily follows from the reflexivity of [itex]E[/itex].

A monoid has a binary operation (+) and a nullary operation (1). From the final remark in the preceding paragraph an equivalence relation that is compatible with + is a congruence.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation!
Now everything is clear.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K