MHB Show that ~ is an equivalence relation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on demonstrating that the relation defined by $x \sim y \iff [x] = [y]$ on the set $M = \{1, 2, \ldots, 10\}$ is an equivalence relation. The properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity are established through logical reasoning. The participants confirm that the relation holds true for the specified partitions in $\mathcal{P} = \{\{1,3,4\}, \{2,8\}, \{7\}, \{5, 6, 9, 10\}\}$, and additional clarification is provided regarding the equivalence classes. The conclusion affirms that the relation is indeed an equivalence relation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of equivalence relations in set theory
  • Familiarity with partitioning of sets
  • Basic knowledge of logical reasoning and proof techniques
  • Concept of equivalence classes
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of equivalence relations in more depth
  • Explore examples of equivalence relations beyond simple sets
  • Learn about functions and their role in defining equivalence relations
  • Investigate the implications of equivalence relations in abstract algebra
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in set theory and logical proofs will benefit from this discussion.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $M:=\{1, 2, \ldots, 10\}$ and $\mathcal{P}:=\{\{1,3,4\}, \{2,8\}, \{7\}, \{5, 6, 9, 10\}\}$.

For $x \in M$ let $[x]$ be the unique set of $\mathcal{P}$ that contains $x$.

We define the relation on $M$ as $x\sim y:\iff [x]=[y]$.

Show that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation.
For that we have to show that the relation is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
  • Reflexivity:

    Let $x \in M$. Then it holds, trivially, that $[x]=[x]$. Therefore $x\sim x$. So $\sim$ is reflexive.
  • Symmetry:

    Let $x,y \in M$ and $x\sim y$. Then $[x]=[y]$. Equivalently it holds that $[y]=[x]$ and therefore $y \sim x$. So $\sim$ is symmetric.
  • Transitivity:

    Let $x,y,z\in M$ and $x\sim y$ and $y\sim z$. Then it holds that $[x]=[y]$ and $[y]=[z]$. So we have that $[x]=[y]=[z]$, so $[x]=[z]$ and therefore $x\sim z$. So $\sim$ is transitive.

Is everything correct and complete? Or do we have to justify each property with more details, i.e. using the definition of $[x]$ ? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, how obvious to you consider each of your claims?

It might be useful to specify that [1]= [3]= [4]= {1, 3, 4}, that [2]= [8]= {2, 8}, that [7]= {7}, and that [5]= [6]= [9]= [10]= {5, 6, 9, 10}.

 
More generally, for all sets $A$ and $B$ and functions $f:A\to B$ the relation $x\sim y\iff f(x)=f(y)$ is an equivalence relation on $A$.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K