What is the Quotient Set for the Given Equivalence Relation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caldus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    quotient
Caldus
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
If I have an equivalence relation acting on all integers (Z): a ~ b if any only if 3a + b is a multiple of 4, then here is what I think the quotient set is:

The equivalence class of 0 = {x belongs to Z | x ~ 0} = {x | 3x = 4n for some integer n}. (The set would look like {0, 4, 8, 12, 16...}.)

The equivalence class of 1 = {x belongs to Z | x ~ 1} = {x | 3x + 1 = 4n for some integer n}. (The set would look like {1, 5, 9, 13, 17...}.)

The equivalence class of 2 = {x belongs to Z | x ~ 2} = {x | 3x + 2 = 4n for some integer n}. (The set would look like {2, 6, 10, 14, 18...}.)

The equivalence class of 3 = {x belongs to Z | x ~ 3} = {x | 3x + 3 = 4n for some integer n}. (The set would look like {3, 7, 11, 15, 19...}.)

So based on that, I conclude that there are 4 elements in the quotient set. Each element contains one of the sets above.

Am I accurate here? Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes, you are correct. And did you notice that the equivalence classes are precisely the equivalence classes "mod 4"? Since 3 and 4 are relatively prime, If 3x is divisible by 4, then x is divisible by 4: if 3a and b are congruent mod 4, then so are a and b.
 
I just realized something. Don't I need to include negative numbers as well?
 
Nevermind, I already took care of them didn't I?
 
Also, for another problem: a^2 - b^2 acting on Z (a ~ b)...

Is the partition for this problem going to be split into two parts:
1. Numbers that are multiples of 3 (0, 3, 6, 9, 12...)
2. Numbers that are not multiples of 3 (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8...)

(Also, is -3 considered a multiple of 3? I'm getting myself confused here...lol...)

Am I accurate again here?

Thank you for your help.
 
What, exactly, is the problem?
"a^2 - b^2 acting on Z (a ~ b)..." are you saying that a~b if and only if a^2- b^2= 0? Or are a and b the equivalence classes defined before?

In either case I don't see what being a multiple of 3 has to do with anything.

(And, yes, -3 is a multiple of 3. When you are including negative numbers, a is a multiple of b if and only if a= nb for some integer n.)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top