1

Let X be a set of three elements ${a,b,c}$.

1.How many different relations can you define?

The answer is 9, as $R\subset X \times X$

This is easy to see for me, I imagine it as a ~ a, a ~ b, ..., c ~ a, ...

2.How many different equivalent relations can you define?

The answer is five. The argument is that you can list all partitions: {{a},{b},{c}},{{a,b},{c}},{{a},{b,c}},{{a,c},{b}},{{a,b,c}}.

What I'm not following is that to have an equivalence relation I must show that it's reflexive (i.e. a ~ a), symmetric (i.e. a ~ b = b ~ a) and transitive (i.e. a ~ b, b ~ c = a ~ c). Which for me covers one equivalence relation; involving three elements. How do the rest four look like?!

  • 1
    I'm not sure you understand what an equivalence relation is. Consider the partition ${{a,b},{c}}$ of ${a,b,c}$. The corresponding equivalence relation is the following table:$$\begin{array}{c|c}\text{Relation}&\text{T/F}\\hline a\sim a&T\a\sim b&T\a\sim c&F\b\sim a&T\b\sim b&T\b\sim c&F\c\sim a&F\c\sim b&F\c\sim c&T\end{array}$$Can you see why this relation is an equivalence relation?Likewise, for the partition ${{a},{b},{c}}$, the corresponding equivalence relation is – Rushabh Mehta Dec 20 '19 at 21:33
  • 1
    $$\begin{array}{c|c}\text{Relation}&\text{T/F}\\hline a\sim a&T\a\sim b&F\a\sim c&F\b\sim a&F\b\sim b&T\b\sim c&F\c\sim a&F\c\sim b&F\c\sim c&T\end{array}$$ Can you see why this is a different equivalence relation? – Rushabh Mehta Dec 20 '19 at 21:38
  • I see ... but ... take the same partition ${{a},{b},{c}}$. I do see relations, but I do not see that any of them are symmetric or transitive. Hence what I do not understand that makes this partition ${{a},{b},{c}}$ an equivalence relation. –  Dec 20 '19 at 21:43
  • 1
    What part of the second table I wrote isn't symmetric or transitive? Show me a violation of either condition. – Rushabh Mehta Dec 20 '19 at 21:47
  • oh .. I think I see it now! The relations just does not need to be true; a ~ b = F = b ~a. It just has to be consistent. –  Dec 20 '19 at 21:52
  • No, it's that if there is an $a$ and $b$ such that $a\sim b$, then $b\sim a$. In this relation, that's only the case when $a=b$, but that is trivial. – Rushabh Mehta Dec 20 '19 at 21:55
  • ok, so take partition ${{a,b},{c}}$ - then a ~ b and b ~ a if $a=a$, $b=b$ or $a=b$. But in another partition ${{a},{b},{c}}$ - a ~ b and b ~ a iff $a=b$ –  Dec 20 '19 at 22:00
  • likewise, if I take partition ${{a,c},{b}}$ - then transitive property is possible if $a=a$, $b=b$ or $c=c$. But in another partition ${a,b,c}$ - transitive property is possible when a, b and c are distinct. I hope i'm right now. –  Dec 20 '19 at 22:05

3 Answers3

1

Your answer for part (1) is incorrect. Any relation on a set $X$ is a subset of $X \times X$. Thus the number of relations is the size of the power set of $X \times X$. In this particular case, $|X \times X|=9$, thus the power set will have size $2^9=512$ relations.

For part (2): Partitions of a set are in one-one correspondence with the equivalence relations on the set, i.e. for each partition, there is an equivalence relation and vice versa.

For example, if we have the partition $\{\{a,b\}, \{c\}\}$, then the elements living in one "part" of the partition will be equivalent to each other. Thus the relation corresponding to this partition will be $$R=\{(a,a), (a,b), (b,a), (b,b), (c,c)\}.$$

Likewise, the relation for the partition $\{\{a\},\{b\}, \{c\}\}$, the corresponding relation will be $$S=\{(a,a), (b,b), (c,c)\}.$$

Anurag A
  • 41,067
  • You appear to be completely misunderstanding. First a set does not "have" reflexive or symmetric relations, it satisfies those rules. Further, those rules start IF! "If (x, y) is in the set, so is (y, x)". "If (x, y) and (y, z) are in the set so is (x, z)". For set S there are NO "(a, b)" or "(a, c)", or "(b, c)" so those never arise. – user247327 Dec 20 '19 at 22:02
  • It's not so bad. The concept is slowly crystallising. –  Dec 20 '19 at 22:13
0

A relation on $X$ is any member of the power set of $X \times X$.

Thus an example if $X = \{a,b,c\} $ is $R_1 = \{ a\sim b, c\sim c \}$ but of course this is not an equivalence relation (for example, we would not have $R_1 (a,a)$ which is $a\sim a$).

So there are $2^9$ relations on a three-element set. The answer of $9$ is wrong.

An equivalence relation must include $\bigcup_{x\in x} x\sim x$ so in our case it must include each of $a\sim a$, $b\sim b$, $c\sim c$. And it must satisfy $$\forall{x,y \in X} : (x \sim y \in R) \implies (y \sim x \in R)$$ And it must also satisfy $$\forall{x,y,z \in X} : (x \sim y \in R) \wedge (y \sim z \in R)\implies (x \sim z \in R)$$ So our equivalence relation $E$ can be formed in exactly 5 ways:

(1) All relations in $E$ are of the form $x = x$.

(2) $E$ includes all relations of the form $x=y$ for any pair $(x,y)$. (This can be expressed by the shorthand $ a \sim b \sim c$.

(3) - (5) The union of case (1) with the two relationships $x \sim y, y \sim x $ for some particular pair of distinct elements $(x,y)$. For example, $\{ a \sim a, b\sim b, c\sim c, a\sim b, b\sim a\}$. Since there are three ways to select the "odd man out" among the three elements, 3 such relationships exist.

Mark Fischler
  • 41,743
0

Partitions of a set are in one-one correspondence with the equivalence relations on the set, i.e. for each partition, there is an equivalence relation and vice versa.

For the set with the three elements $\{a,b,c\}$ there are five ways to partition them while the classes of each partition are disjoint and the union of the classes in each partition equals the set (by definition of a partition}.

First possible partition: $\{\{a\},\{b\},\{c\}\} : 3$ classes, each class with $1$ element.

$2$nd possible partition: $\{\{a,b\},\{c\}\} 2$ classes, one with elements $a,b$ and the other with $c$.

Similarly we see three other possible partitions: $\{\{a\},\{b,c\}\},\{\{a,c\},\{b\}\}$, and $\{\{a,b,c\}\}$.

Because these are the only five possible ways we can partition the set into disjoint classes, whose union equals exactly the original set $\{a,b,c\}$ , we conclude that there are five equivalent relations.

That is of the $512$ possible relations on the set $\{a,b,c\}$ only five are equivalent relations. Verify that each relation corresponding to each partition is an equivalent relation.

Siong Thye Goh
  • 149,520
  • 20
  • 88
  • 149