Questions tagged [equivalence-relations]

For questions about relations that are reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. These are relations that model a sense of "equality" between elements of a set. Consider also using the (relation) tag.

An equivalence relation is a particular kind of relation that models a notion of "equality" between elements of a set. A relation $R$ on a set $X$ will be an equivalence relation if it satisfies the following properties:

  • Reflexive – For each $a \in X$, we have $a \mathrel{R} a$.
  • Symmetric – For any $a,b \in X$, $a \mathrel{R} b$ if and only if $b \mathrel{R} a$
  • Transitive – For any $a,b,c \in X$, if $a \mathrel{R} b$ and $b \mathrel{R} c$, then $a \mathrel{R} c$.

Commonly the symbols $\equiv$ or $\cong$ or $\simeq$ or $=$ are used for equivalence relations instead of the letter $R$. Here are some examples of equivalence relations:

  • On the set $\mathbf{Z}$ of integers define the relation $\equiv_{37}$ on $\mathbf{Z}\times \mathbf{Z}$ by saying $a\equiv_{37} b$ if both $a$ and $b$ give the same remainder when divided by $37$. If $a \equiv_{37} b$ we say that $a$ and $b$ are congruent modulo $37$.

  • Let $T$ be the set of all triangles in the plane. An example of an equivalence relation on $T$ is the relation of two triangles being congruent.

3120 questions
1
vote
2 answers

Find the equivalence classes

Prove or disprove: There is an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\mathbb{Z}$ defined by $x \sim y$ if $x − y$ is even. What are the equivalence classes? I have proven that there is an equivalence relation by proving symmetry, transitivity, and…
baba
  • 299
1
vote
1 answer

equivalence relation for $2a - b = 2c - d$ where $a,b,c,d$ are elements of $\mathbb{R}$

For $(a,b), (c,d)\in \mathbb{R}^2$ define $(a,b)\sim (c,d)$ to mean that $2a−b = 2c−d$. Prove that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathbb{R}^2$. Reflexive: let $a$ be an element in $\mathbb{R}$. so $2a - a = 2a - a$. therefore $a\sim a$ is…
1
vote
2 answers

Equivalence Relation Proof for modular arithmatic

Given this modular relation: $x^3 \equiv y \pmod{3}$ how would you go about proving the transitivity of the system? I have proven the reflexivity, and symmetry pretty easily but the transitivity is giving me many problems, and I feel like im not…
xmfm45
  • 86
1
vote
2 answers

theorems on equivalence classes

I have a few short proofs that I wish to be checked regarding equivalent classes. Suppose that R is an equivalence relation on set X. If $a, b \in X$, then $a\in [a]$ $[a] = [b] \iff (a, b) \in R$ $[a]\cap[b]=\emptyset\iff(a, b)\notin R$ For…
user12488
  • 425
1
vote
0 answers

Equivalence Set, Subsets

Just a quick question: If a = [A] and a belongs to N (set of all natural numbers) doesn't that mean that A is a subset of N? The reason I'm asking this is because I'm trying to prove the theorem that the set of all natural numbers is closed under…
user1563544
  • 167
  • 1
  • 8
1
vote
1 answer

Counting Ordered Pairs

Let $A$ be a finite set with $n \geq 4$ elements and let $\rho$ be an equivalence relation on $A$. Suppose that there are exactly $4$ equivalence classes, $C_1$, $C_2$, $C_3$, $C_4$. Moreover we know that $|C_1| = |C_2| = 1$. Let $a\in A$ be a fixed…
1
vote
1 answer

Verify an equivalence relation.

For a set $E $ of real numbers, define two points in $E $to be rationally equivalent if their difference belongs to $Q $. Prove that this defines an equivalence relation. (i) is trivial as 0 is a rational number (ii) Suppose $r - q $ is rational.…
Alexander
  • 2,247
1
vote
1 answer

Define a $T$ on $ A \times B$ by $((a_1,b_1),(a_2,b_2)) \in T \leftrightarrow (a_1,a_2) \in R$. Prove that $T$ is an equivalence relation.

Let $R$ be an equivalence relation on $A$ and let $S$ be an equivalence relation on $B$. Define a $T$ on $ A \times B$ by $((a_1,b_1),(a_2,b_2)) \in T \leftrightarrow (a_1,a_2) \in R$ and $(b_1,b_2) \in S$. Prove that $T$ is an equivalence…
usukidoll
  • 2,074
1
vote
1 answer

Proof that a given relation is an equivalence relation

Can someone can tell me if my proof of the next propostion is correct? Define the following relation: $$a\sim b \iff a-b=km, m\in \mathbb{Z}$$ Show $\sim$ is an equivalence relation And so here's my attempt on showing it Proof. Let $a, b, c \in…
1
vote
1 answer

proving something is a well-defined function

1) Define ~ S4 as follows: for f, g element of S4 f~g if and only if f(4) = g(4) this is easily seen to be an equivalence relation on S4 (you don't have to show this) let X = S4/ ~ be the set of all equivalence classes under ~. Define * X as [f] *…
1
vote
1 answer

Equivalence relation necklaces problem

Consider the question of making necklaces by arranging n distinguishable beads on a string. Assume that once all $n$ beads are placed on the string its ends are carefully knotted so the knot cannot be seen and the beads are equally spaced on the…
1
vote
2 answers

We define a function $f : \mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z \to\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z$ by$ f([l])=[7l^2]$.

Let $n$ be a natural number and let $k$ be an integer number. Let $[x]$ be the relation class of $x$ (integer number) modulo $n$. How now to prove this is a function?
1
vote
1 answer

Show that the relation R defined on $\mathscr{P} \left( A \right)$ by $a R b, \forall x (x \in A \Leftrightarrow x \in B)$

Let $\mathscr{P} \left( A \right)$ denote the set of all subsets of a set $A$. Show that the relation $R$ defined on $\mathscr{P} \left( A \right)$ by $a R b, \forall x (x \in A \Leftrightarrow x \in B)$ is an equivalence relation on $\mathscr{P}…
1
vote
1 answer

Equivalence classes of $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$.

I am trying to write down and prove a precise characterization of the equivalence classes of the relation on $\mathbb{R}$ defined by $x \sim y$ if and only if $x - y \in \mathbb{Z}$. What I've done so far is shown that any $x \in \mathbb{R}$ can be…
Brad G.
  • 2,238
1
vote
1 answer

Is the relation $R = \{(x, y) : x = ay\}$ reflexive, symmetric or transitive given a is some rational number

Isn't the following relation supposed to be neither? I believe for reflexive $x = ax$ holds true for only $a = 1$. But it isn't so for any other rational number. Isn't it that if we can prove any one case where the relation doesn't hold true, it…