Just needs checking please (Sets and Relations)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Natasha1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the equivalence relation defined on the set of ordered pairs of natural numbers, where (a,b)p(c,d) if a+d = b+c. The equivalence class of (2,6) consists of ordered pairs where the difference between the first and second elements equals -4, such as (4,8) and (6,10). For integers 0, -1, and +1, the equivalence classes are represented by specific forms of ordered pairs: (a,a), (a-1,a), and (a+1,a) respectively. The multiplication and addition of ordered pairs are shown to satisfy the properties that (-1) x (-1) = +1 and (+1) + (-1) = 0, demonstrating the behavior of these equivalence classes. The discussion emphasizes the need for general proofs rather than specific examples to validate these relationships.
Natasha1
Messages
494
Reaction score
9
MY WORK FOLLOWS BELOW THE QUESTIONS

Let AxB be the set of ordered pairs (a,b) where a and b belong to the set of natural numbers N.

A relation p: AxB ----> AxB is defined by: (a,b)p(c,d) <-----> a+d = b+c

As p is an equivalence relation there are associated equivalence classes.

(iv) Find all the ordered pairs in the equivalence class of (2,6). Why could this equivalence class be identified with the integer -4?

(v) Give the equivalence classes (as sets of ordered pairs) defined by p for each of the integers: 0, -1 and +1

(vi) Consider two general ordered pairs, (a,b) and (c,d). If addition is defined by (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) and multiplication is defined by (a,b) x (c,d) = (ac+bd, ad+bc), show that these definitions provide a way of demonstrating that (+1) + (-1) = 0 and (-1) x (-1) = (+1)

HERE IS MY WORK

(iv) The ordered pairs of the equivalence class (2,6) are infinite i.e. (4,8) or (6,10) so to find the general term let's write the condition as follows: a - b = c - d (so that the values of one pair appear on the left and the values of the other on the right). Here a - b = 2 - 6 = -4. Therefore any pair (c,d) with c-d = -4 (or d-c = 4) is also related.

(v) The set of ordered pairs are:

0 ----------> (a,a) where b=a

-1 ---------> (a-1, a) where b=a+1 or should I write like this instead (a, a+1)? Not sure let me know

+1 ---------> (a+1, a) where b=a-1 or should I write like this instead (a, a-1)? Not sure let me know

(vi) Let's consider 2 pairs say (2,3) and (6,7) which are as seen previously have an integer of -1 then if the multiplication of two orderd pairs is defined by (a,b) x (c,d) = (ac+bd, ad+bc) then

(2,3) x (6,7) = (12+21,14+18) = (33,32) which is has as seen in the previous question an integer of +1

Hence -1 x -1 = +1

Again, if we choose 1 pair say (33, 32) with an integer of +1 and the pair (5,6) with an integer value of -1 then the addition of two ordered pairs is defined by (a,b) + (c,d) = (a+c, b+d) and we get

(33,32) + (5,6) = (33+5, 32+6) = (38,38) which has an integer value of 0

Hence +1 + -1 = 0

Please correct any of my mistakes anyone... many thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Natasha1 said:
...
(v) The set of ordered pairs are:
0 ----------> (a,a) where b=a
-1 ---------> (a-1, a) where b=a+1 or should I write like this instead (a, a+1)? ...
I would write it the second way, since we're dealing with N. If by (a-1,a), you're writing shorthand for the set \{(a-1, a): a \in \mathbb{N}\} then there is no corresponding term for a=0 (or a=1 depending on your definition of N). The next one is fine since adding one to a natural number will never take it out of the set.
Natasha1 said:
(vi) Let's consider 2 pairs say (2,3) and (6,7) which are as seen previously have an integer of -1 then if the multiplication of two orderd pairs is defined by (a,b) x (c,d) = (ac+bd, ad+bc) then
(2,3) x (6,7) = (12+21,14+18) = (33,32) which is has as seen in the previous question an integer of +1
Hence -1 x -1 = +1
This is not enough to show that (-1)x(-1) = (+1). You must show it for an arbitrary element of the equivalence class, not any specific element. This is to show that only the fact that it is in the class (-1) makes it behave this way, and that it is not simply a side effect of the specific pair you picked. You should start off something like "All elements of the class (-1) have the form (a, a+1), so multiplying two arbitrary elements (a, a+1)x(b,b+1) gives us..." and so on. Same for the next question. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Right then,

All elements of the class (-1) have the form (a, a+1), so multiplying two arbitrary elements (a, a+1)x(b,b+1) gives us

(a, a+1)x(b,b+1) = (ab+(a+1)(b+1), a(b+1)+b(a+1))
= (ab+ab+a+b+1, ab+a+ab+b)
= (2ab+a+b+1, 2ab+a+b) which has an integer of +1 (Should I say it like that? how can I end this nicely?)

Hence -1 x -1 = +1

If one element of the class (-1) , which has the form (a, a+1) is added to an element of the class (+1) which has the form (a,a-1) gives us

(a, a+1) + (b,b-1) = (a+b, a+1+b-1)
= (a+b, a+b) which has an integer of 0 (Should I say it like that? how can I end this nicely?)

Hence +1 + -1 = 0
 
Natasha1 said:
Right then,
All elements of the class (-1) have the form (a, a+1), so multiplying two arbitrary elements (a, a+1)x(b,b+1) gives us
(a, a+1)x(b,b+1) = (ab+(a+1)(b+1), a(b+1)+b(a+1))
= (ab+ab+a+b+1, ab+a+ab+b)
= (2ab+a+b+1, 2ab+a+b) which has an integer of +1 (Should I say it like that? how can I end this nicely?)
Well, the last line is enough, but you could clarify by saying that it is of the form (c+1,c) = (+1) where c = 2ab + a + b. You already established earlier that pairs of that form are in the equivalence class (+1), but you can do it again by just noting that (c+1)-c = +1. The same holds for the next question. :smile:
 
I picked up this problem from the Schaum's series book titled "College Mathematics" by Ayres/Schmidt. It is a solved problem in the book. But what surprised me was that the solution to this problem was given in one line without any explanation. I could, therefore, not understand how the given one-line solution was reached. The one-line solution in the book says: The equation is ##x \cos{\omega} +y \sin{\omega} - 5 = 0##, ##\omega## being the parameter. From my side, the only thing I could...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top