MHB What is the Equivalence Class for a Fixed Integer in Hurricane Lane's Aftermath?

  • Thread starter Thread starter karush
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs Set
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
View attachment 8332
ok need help with these 3 questions

I know its fairly easy but its new to me, so

we have had hurricane Lane here this week
but mahalo much
 
Physics news on Phys.org
13. Showing that the given relation is an equivalence relation is straightforward. I suppose you are stuck at describing the equivalence classes. Let $a$ be a fixed integer. What is the equivalence class containing $a$, i.e. $[a]$? Well, $b\in[a]$ $\iff$ $b\sim a$ $\iff$ $b-a=n\in\mathbb Z$ $\iff$ $b=a+n$ $\iff$ $b\in\{a+n:n\in\mathbb Z\}$. Hence $[a]=\{a+n:n\in\mathbb Z\}$.

14. Is this relation transitive? Hint: $1\cdot0\ge0$ and $0\cdot(-1)\ge0$.

15: Suppose $\frak P$ is a partition of a set $S$; then the relation is $a\sim b$ iff $a$ and $b$ belong to the same subset of $S$ in $\frak P$. By the definition of a partition, every member of $S$ belongs to some subset of $S$ in $\frak P$; hence ~ is reflexive. It is clearly symmetric. I’ll leave you to show that it is transitive, hence an equivalence relation.
 
Olinguito said:
13. Showing that the given relation is an equivalence relation is straightforward. I suppose you are stuck at describing the equivalence classes. Let $a$ be a fixed integer. What is the equivalence class containing $a$, i.e. $[a]$? Well, $b\in[a]$ $\iff$ $b\sim a$ $\iff$ $b-a=n\in\mathbb Z$ $\iff$ $b=a+n$ $\iff$ $b\in\{a+n:n\in\mathbb Z\}$. Hence $[a]=\{a+n:n\in\mathbb Z\}$.

14. Is this relation transitive? Hint: $1\cdot0\ge0$ and $0\cdot(-1)\ge0$.

15: Suppose $\frak P$ is a partition of a set $S$; then the relation is $a\sim b$ iff $a$ and $b$ belong to the same subset of $S$ in $\frak P$. By the definition of a partition, every member of $S$ belongs to some subset of $S$ in $\frak P$; hence ~ is reflexive. It is clearly symmetric. I’ll leave you to show that it is transitive, hence an equivalence relation.


that was very helpful ;)
 
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
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K