Quotient set of an equivalence relation

  • Thread starter Luna=Luna
  • Start date
  • #1
Luna=Luna
16
0
On the set of Z of integers define a relation by writing m [itex]\triangleright[/itex] n for m, n [itex]\in[/itex] Z.

m[itex]\triangleright[/itex]n if m-n is divisble by k, where k is a fixed integer.

Show that the quotient set under this equivalence relation is:

Z/[itex]\triangleright[/itex] = {[0], [1], ... [k-1]}

I'm a bit new the subject of Set Theory so I'm a bit unsure as to how to go about solving this.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mathman
Science Advisor
8,062
540
On the set of Z of integers define a relation by writing m [itex]\triangleright[/itex] n for m, n [itex]\in[/itex] Z.

If m-n is divisble by k, where k is a fixed integer then show that the quotient set under this equivalence relation is:

Z/[itex]\triangleright[/itex] = {[0], [1], ... [k-1]}

I'm a bit new the subject of Set Theory so I'm a bit unsure as to how to go about solving this.
[itex]\triangleright[/itex] seems to be undefined. You say it is a relationship without saying what it is.
 
  • #3
Luna=Luna
16
0
sorry it wasn't clear from my post, i've rewritten the post to be a bit more clear.

The relationship is:
m[itex]\triangleright[/itex]n, if m-n is divisble by k, where k is a fixed integer.
 
  • #4
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
But you also haven't said what "[1]", "[2]", ... "[k]" are. Of course, they are the equivalence classes but unless your question is "why are there k classes" rather than "why are the classes what they are", you need to specify "what they are"! Essentially what you wrote was that you want to prove that the "quotient set" is the "set of equivalence classes" which is basically the definition of "quotient set"!
(Similar to writing "Luna= Luna"!)

Start with k= 1. All numbers in the same equivalence class with it ([1]) are numbers n such that n- 1 is divisible by k. That is the same as saying "n- 1= mk" for some m or n= mk+ 1. That is, all numbers that are 1 more than a multiple of k: [1]= {..., -2k+ 1, -k+ 1, 1, k+ 1, 2k+ 1, ...}. Similarly, [2]= {..., -2k+ 2, -k+ 2, 2, k+ 2, 2k+ 2, ...}. You can do that until you get to [k]= {..., -2k, -k, 0, k, 2k, ...} which is the same as [0]. If we try to do the same thing with k+ 1, we get [k+1]= {..., -2k+ (k+1), -k+ (k+1), k+ 1, k+ (k+ 1), 2k+ (k+ 1), ...}= {..., -k+ 1, 1, k+ 1, 2k+ 1, 3k+ 1, ...} which is exactly the same as [1].
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person

Suggested for: Quotient set of an equivalence relation

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
771
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
485
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
799
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
Top