1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Equivalence relations

  1. Oct 31, 2009 #1
    This is a question from A consise introduction to pure mathematics (Martin Liebeck)

    Hi guys, just stuck on one problem was wondering if someone could lend me hand.

    Let ~ be an equivalence relation on all intergers with the property that for all "m" is an element of the set of intergers , we have,

    m ~ m +5
    and also m ~ m+8

    Prove that m~ n for all m, n is an element of intergers.

    This is on page 161 of Martin Liebeck's book, number 7.

    Im really stuck!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2009 #2

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    If you could show m~m+1 that would do it, right? Can you show m~m+5 and m~m+8 imply that?
     
  4. Oct 31, 2009 #3

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    For example, 6= 1+ 5 so 1 and 6 are equivalent. But 11= 6+ 5 so, because of the "transitive property, 1 is equivalent to 11. And, since 9= 1+ 8, 9 is also equivalent to 1 and therefore equivalent to 6 and 11. But 9= 4+ 5 so 9 is also equivalent to 9 and therefore to 1, and 6, and 11.

    It looks to me like this is saying that two numbers, m and n are equivalent if and only if m= n+ 5i+ 8j for some integers 5 and 8. And that is same as saying m- n= 5i+ 8j. Let k= m-n. If you can show that any integer, k, can be written k= 5i+ 8j for some integers i and j, you have it.

    I can show, using the Euclidean division algorithm, that for any integer k, i= -3k and j= 2k will work. Can you get that?
     
  5. Nov 1, 2009 #4
    Yeah kind of, not 100% sure.

    I know its a equibalence relations, so dont we have to prove that it is reflexsive, symmetric, and transitive?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Equivalence relations
  1. Equivalence Relation (Replies: 3)

  2. Equivalence Relations! (Replies: 2)

  3. Equivalence Relations (Replies: 5)

  4. Equivalence relation ? (Replies: 1)

  5. Equivalence Relations (Replies: 9)

Loading...