anonymous
  • anonymous
Equivalence Relations Question Let S = {1, 2, 3}. Find all equivalence relations on S, and for each one, give the corresponding partition of S into equivalence classes. (You can describe each equivalence relation as a subset of \(S \times S\). Ok, I am just completely lost on this one...I get that I will have 5 equivalence relations since there are 5 ways to partition a set of three numbers, but I have no idea how to go about "finding" these equivalence relations. Not looking for an answer, just looking for someone to give me a push and maybe check to see if I'm doing it right.
Mathematics
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
zzr0ck3r
  • zzr0ck3r
First off, you must have that it is reflexive, so that every relations will contain \[\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3)\}\] as a subset. Also, note that this will pass all the rules of a relation, so it is one of them. Now what happens if we add \((1,2)\), well since it must be symmetric so we must add \((2,1)\), note that if we add these two that we still have transitive. So here is another ER.\[\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(1,2),(2,1)\}\] Similarly \[\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(1,3),(3,1)\}\] and \[\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(2,3),(3,2)\}\] But now take any one of these last three, say (\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(2,3),(3,2)\}\) And throw in some point that is not in there, say \((2,1)\), wee then I got to throw in \((1,2)\), but now I have \((1,2)\) and \((2,3)\) so I got to throw in \((1,3)\), and if you play this game, you get the last one \[\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(1,2)(2,1)(2,3)(3,2)(1,3),(3,1)\}\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
Wow. I did not at all even think of looking at the problem from that angle. Two questions though, 1) when you have an equivalence relation, do you not need to have 2 variables related x~y by some clause? Like \(x \le y\) or something? Like, can you just straight out call those equivalence relations? 2) Doesn't an equivalence relation have to partition a set into disjoint subsets?\[\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(1,2),(2,1)\}\]How exactly is this ^ partitioned? I'm sorry if these are dumb questions, but I'm just very confused on this topic (this is from a Linear Algebra course).
anonymous
  • anonymous
Someone help, please? I can definitely tell that those sets of points are indeed equivalence relations, but I don't quite get how the sets are disjoint partitions of \(S\times S\)?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
I guess a better question would be, when it says that "disjoint partitions" are formed, it doesn't mean that the ordered pairs of \(S \times S\) are partitioned, but the elements of S are partitioned. So, as @zzr0ck3r posted above respectively, 1) \(\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}\}\) 2) \(\{\{1,2\},\{3\}\}\) 3) \(\{\{1, 3\},\{2\}\}\) 4) \(\{\{2, 3\},\{1\}\}\) 5) \(\{1, 2, 3\}\) Is this the right reasoning?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
There are exactly \(9\) elements in the cartesian product \(S\times S\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Right, which is what confused me since the ordered pairs of each equivalence relation are not disjoint partitions of all 9 ordered pairs. So, I'm now thinking that the cartesian product \(S\times S\) is just a means of describing the equivalence relation, and the equivalence relation is simply partitioning the set itself. Is this correct?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Right, "equivalence classes" form a partition of the set \(S\)
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
for this equivalence relation \(\{(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(1,2),(2,1)\}\) the equivalence classes are \([1] = \{1,2\}\) and \([3]=\{3\}\) \([1]\) and \([3]\) do partition the set \(S\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ok, that does make sense. So, to make sure, 1 more time, it's partitioning the set \(S\), not \(S\times S\). That was the part that was confusing me the most.
anonymous
  • anonymous
And is what I posted above correct as far as the partitions for each equivalence relation? Just want to make sure.
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Yes, you earlier reply looks good to me : I guess a better question would be, when it says that "disjoint partitions" are formed, it doesn't mean that the ordered pairs of \(S \times S\) are partitioned, but the elements of S are partitioned. So, as @zzr0ck3r posted above respectively, 1) \(\{\{1\}, \{2\}, \{3\}\}\) 2) \(\{\{1,2\},\{3\}\}\) 3) \(\{\{1, 3\},\{2\}\}\) 4) \(\{\{2, 3\},\{1\}\}\) 5) \(\{1, 2, 3\}\) Is this the right reasoning?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ok, thanks! One last question, it is ok to denote equivalence relations as ordered pairs? When my professor taught equivalence relations to our class, he used the notation x~y and said that the variables were related if..."something". This is a binary relation, and it's not necessary to express the equivalence relation in this way, correct?
anonymous
  • anonymous
I'm going to assume that's right for now (have to go to sleep). Thanks for all the help you guys!
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
@zzr0ck3r knows more about the notation than anybody else here
zzr0ck3r
  • zzr0ck3r
Sorry, the notation \((a,b)\)means \(a\equiv b\) or \(a\) is equivalent to \(b\). So transitivity would be this \((a,b),(b,c)\in R \implies (a,c)\in R\). Remember a relation is a set of ordered pairs.
zzr0ck3r
  • zzr0ck3r
Yes, the partition thingy you guys are talking about is correct.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Oh, ok. Thanks, I think I understand everything now! :)

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.