MHB Glad I could help! Good luck with your studies.

the rambler
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi guys! First time poster, long time lurker! I can't make any sense out of equivalence relations:confused: These kinda questions crop up every year on the exam and I was wondering if someone could help me understand the concept behind them.

(i)Show that relation R defined on the of the
set S = {0, 1, . . . , 99} as R = {(a, b) € S × S : a − b is a multiple of 25} is an
equivalence relation.
I understand that to show something is an equivalence relation you need to show that they are reflexive, symmetric and transistive but I've no idea how to apply that to a question like this?

(ii) How many elements does the R-equivalence class of
a = 73 have?

Would this be 4? As in 73 itself, 73-25= 48, 73-50=23 and 73+25= 98

(i) Show that relation ~ defi ned on the set X = N x N = {(a, b) : a € N; b € N} as
(a,b)  (c,d) if and only if a + d = c + b
is an equivalence relation. (ii) Write down three elements of the equivalence class of
(12, 7). What do they all have in common?

[€ = an element of]

No clue at all hereExcuse my very humble attempts at answering the questions (Blush) Any help at all would be very much appreciated :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the rambler said:
Hi guys! First time poster, long time lurker! I can't make any sense out of equivalence relations:confused: These kinda questions crop up every year on the exam and I was wondering if someone could help me understand the concept behind them.

(i)Show that relation R defined on the of the
set S = {0, 1, . . . , 99} as R = {(a, b) € S × S : a − b is a multiple of 25} is an
equivalence relation.
I understand that to show something is an equivalence relation you need to show that they are reflexive, symmetric and transistive but I've no idea how to apply that to a question like this?

(ii) How many elements does the R-equivalence class of
a = 73 have?

Would this be 4? As in 73 itself, 73-25= 48, 73-50=23 and 73+25= 98

(i) Show that relation ~ defi ned on the set X = N x N = {(a, b) : a € N; b € N} as
(a,b)  (c,d) if and only if a + d = c + b
is an equivalence relation. (ii) Write down three elements of the equivalence class of
(12, 7). What do they all have in common?

[€ = an element of]

No clue at all hereExcuse my very humble attempts at answering the questions (Blush) Any help at all would be very much appreciated :)

$a$ is related to $b$ if $a-b$ is a multiple of 25. $a$ is related to $a$ since 0 is a multiple of 25. The relation is symmetric since $a-b$ is a multiple of 25 implies $b-a$ is a multiple of 25. You do transitivity.

For ii) You need to find the set of $b$ in S such that $73-b$ is a multiple of 25.Clearly the set of suitable $b$ is {23, 48,73,98}

You should now have a better idea how to answer the remaining questions
 
Fermat said:
$a$ is related to $b$ if $a-b$ is a multiple of 25.

It seems so simple but this is the bit I couldn't grasp! The notation completely threw me off.. Thanks so much :D
 
There are a couple of different ways to express an equivalence relation on a set $S$, both are used, although one often sees this form:

$a \sim b$ as meaning: "$a$ is related to $b$" (also called "infix symbol notation").

In accordance with this, the equivalence class of $a$, written $[a]$ (usually), is the set:

$\{x \in S: a \sim x\}$.

However, a relation $R$ on $S$, (of which equivalence relations are "special kinds") is just a subset of $S \times S$. So one also sees the notation:

$(a,b) \in R$

instead of $a \sim b$. They mean the same thing.

**********

Here is another way to look at your problem:

For any function $f:A \to B$, we can define $a \sim a'$ (these are two elements of $A$) if $f(a) = f(a')$. It would be well worth your while to prove this indeed does define an equivalence relation on $A$. This is called the equivalence relation induced by the function $f$.

So...what would our function be, in this case?

Well, given any natural number $n$, we can write:

$n = 25q_n + r_n$ for a pair of UNIQUE natural numbers $q_n,r_n$ ($q_n$ is called the QUOTIENT, and $r_n$ the REMAINDER).

Convince yourself that this means we have a function:

$f:\Bbb N \to \{0,1,2,\dots,24\}$ given by:

$f(n) = r_n$.

This is still a function if we restrict our domain to $S = \{0,1,2,\dots,99\} \subseteq \Bbb N$

Finally, can you see that we have: $a \sim b$ (that is: $a - b = 25k$ for some integer $k$) if and only if $r_a = r_b$?
 
Deveno said:
There are a couple of different ways to express an equivalence relation on a set $S$, both are used, although one often sees this form:

$a \sim b$ as meaning: "$a$ is related to $b$" (also called "infix symbol notation").

In accordance with this, the equivalence class of $a$, written $[a]$ (usually), is the set:

$\{x \in S: a \sim x\}$.

However, a relation $R$ on $S$, (of which equivalence relations are "special kinds") is just a subset of $S \times S$. So one also sees the notation:

$(a,b) \in R$

instead of $a \sim b$. They mean the same thing.

**********

Here is another way to look at your problem:

For any function $f:A \to B$, we can define $a \sim a'$ (these are two elements of $A$) if $f(a) = f(a')$. It would be well worth your while to prove this indeed does define an equivalence relation on $A$. This is called the equivalence relation induced by the function $f$.

So...what would our function be, in this case?

Well, given any natural number $n$, we can write:

$n = 25q_n + r_n$ for a pair of UNIQUE natural numbers $q_n,r_n$ ($q_n$ is called the QUOTIENT, and $r_n$ the REMAINDER).

Convince yourself that this means we have a function:

$f:\Bbb N \to \{0,1,2,\dots,24\}$ given by:

$f(n) = r_n$.

This is still a function if we restrict our domain to $S = \{0,1,2,\dots,99\} \subseteq \Bbb N$

Finally, can you see that we have: $a \sim b$ (that is: $a - b = 25k$ for some integer $k$) if and only if $r_a = r_b$?
This makes a lot more sense now! Thank you :)
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
792
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
730
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
825
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K