How Do I Define an Equivalence Relation on a Subset?

mcfc
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
If I have a subset, how do I define an equivalence relation.
I understand it has to satisfy three properties:transitive, symmetric and reflexive, but I'm not sure how to give an explicit definition of the equivalence relation, for example on I where
I=\{(x,y) : 0 \le x\le 1 \ \& \ 0 \le y \le 1\}
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Do you know what a cartesian product is? If you don't its a very important topic for anyone learning set theory to know.

If you do, then an equivalence relation R from A to B is a subset of A X B. In other words an equivalence relation R contains those ordered pairs (a,b) \in A X B such that a is related to b by R.

In your example that equivalence relation is a subset of \Re X \Re consisting of those (x,y) \in \Re X \Re such that 0 \leq x \leq 1, 0 \leq y \leq 1.

Hope that makes sense to you.
 


CharmedQuark said:
Do you know what a cartesian product is? If you don't its a very important topic for anyone learning set theory to know.

If you do, then an equivalence relation R from A to B is a subset of A X B. In other words an equivalence relation R contains those ordered pairs (a,b) \in A X B such that a is related to b by R.

In your example that equivalence relation is a subset of \Re X \Re consisting of those (x,y) \in \Re X \Re such that 0 \leq x \leq 1, 0 \leq y \leq 1.

Hope that makes sense to you.

HI

That does makes sense, but I can't see how to define an explicit equivalence relation...?
 


mcfc said:
...for example on I where
I=\{(x,y) : 0 \le x\le 1 \ \& \ 0 \le y \le 1\}

I x I has the required properties, right?
 


bpet said:
I x I has the required properties, right?

sorry...I don't follow(again)
 


mcfc said:
sorry...I don't follow(again)

The equivalence relation you gave is a relation on the set I. I X I is the cartesian product of I with itself. Since the relation R is from I to I it is a subset of I X I. An equivalence relation is a set and can be written as such.

Perhaps if you rephrased your question I could be of more help?
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top