Section 4.1 Equivalence Relations
Objectives
- Define relations on a set; determine whether or not a relation is an equivalence relation; determine the congruence classes of equivalence relations
- Construct proofs about relations and their properties.
You will have seen equivalence relations in MAT102. Recall that they allow us to talk about the same-ness of objects in terms of some defining characteristic, even if those two objects are not necessarily equal.
Relations generalize functions; equivalence relations are relations that satisfy a number of properties.
Definition 4.1.1. Relation.
Given sets
If
Example 4.1.2. A Simple Relation.
Let \(A = \{0,2,4,6\}\) and \(B = \{0,1,2,3,4\}\text{.}\)
The set
is a subset of \(A \times B\text{,}\) so \(R\) is a relation between \(A\) and \(B\text{.}\)
Checkpoint 4.1.3. Counting Relations.
How many relations are there between the sets \(A = \{0,2,4,6\}\) and \(B = \{0,1,2,3,4\}\text{?}\)
How many subsets does \(A \times B\) have?
Checkpoint 4.1.4. Counting Relations and Functions.
Let \(A\) and \(B\) be finite sets.
- How many relations are there between \(A\) and \(B\text{?}\)
- How many functions are there from \(A\) to \(B\text{?}\)
Which of your anwers from (a) or (b) should be larger? Why?
Equivalence relations are a special type of relation—they satisfy a number of additional conditions that allow for a reasonable way to talk about objects being equivalent.
Video: Equivalence Relations, Part 1 (by Mike Pawliuk)
Video: Equivalence Relations, Part 2 (by Mike Pawliuk)
Definition 4.1.5. Equivalence Relation.
An equivalence relation
- Reflexive property
For all
- Symmetric property
For all
implies- Transitive property
For all
and imply
Checkpoint 4.1.6. Equivalence Relation or Not?
For each relation, determine whether or not it satisfies the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive properties. Then conclude whether or not it is an equivalence relation.
- The order relation \(\lt\) on \(\mathbb{R}\)
- The relation \(R = \{(a,a),(b,b),(c,c),(a,b),(b,a),(a,c),(c,a)\}\) on the set \(\{a,b,c\}\)
- The relation \(D = \{(m,n): m + n \text{ is odd} \}\) on \(\mathbb{Z}\)
- The relation \(\equiv\) on \(\mathbb{Z}\) given by \(a \equiv b \ \Leftrightarrow \ n \mid (a-b)\text{,}\) for a fixed \(n \in \mathbb{N}\)
- The relation \(\sim\) on \(\mathbb{R}\) given by \(x \sim y \Leftrightarrow (x-y)(x^2+y^2-1) = 0\)
- The relation \(\approx\) on \(\mathbb{R}^2\) given by \((x,y) \approx (w,z) \Leftrightarrow xy = wz\)
Video: Equivalence Classes, Part 1 (by Mike Pawliuk)
Definition 4.1.7. Equivalence Class.
Let
The equivalence class of
Checkpoint 4.1.8. List the Equivalence Classes.
List all equivalence classes of the equivalence relation
on the set \(S = \{v,w,x,y,z\}\text{.}\)
An equivalence relation on a set
Lemma 4.1.9. Equivalent Objects are in the Same Class.
Let
Proof.
Let \(R\) be an equivalence relation on \(S\text{,}\) and let \(a, b \in S\) such that \((a,b) \in R\text{.}\) We will prove \([a] \subseteq [b]\text{.}\)
Let \(y \in [a]\text{.}\) Then:
Hence \([a] \subseteq [b]\text{.}\) The other inclusion is similarly proved, from which \([a] = [b]\) follows.
Theorem 4.1.10. Equivalence Relations induce Partitions.
If
- any
belongs to some equivalence class; and - any two different equivalence classes are disjoint.
In particular, the equivalence classes induced by
Checkpoint 4.1.11. Prove Theorem 4.1.10 (a).
Write a one-line proof of part (a) of Theorem 4.1.10.
Checkpoint 4.1.12. Prove Theorem 4.1.10 (b).
Prove part (b) of Theorem 4.1.10 by showing that any two equivalence classes that have a common element must be the same equivalence class.
You may want to use Lemma 4.1.9.
Video: Equivalence Classes, Part 2 (by Mike Pawliuk)
Checkpoint 4.1.13. Describe the Classes I.
Describe the equivalence classes of the equivalence relation \(\sim\) on \(\mathbb{Z}\) defined by
Checkpoint 4.1.14. Describe the Classes II.
Let \(A = \{0,1,2\}\text{,}\) and consider the relation \(\cong\) on \(P(A) \setminus \{\varnothing\}\) defined by
Prove \(\cong\) is an equivalence relation, and describe the equivalence classes.
Checkpoint 4.1.15. Give Examples.
Give examples of equivalence relations on \(\mathbb{Z}\text{:}\)
- with exactly one equivalence class;
- with exactly two equivalence classes;
- with infinitely many equivalence classes.
Remark 4.1.16. Representatives of Equivalence Classes.
If
Example 4.1.17. Multiple Possible Representatives.
Consider the equivalence relation
on \(\mathbb{Z}\text{.}\)
The equivalence class of \(0\) is
and hence \([0]\) contains exactly all even integers. This means we can also call \([0]\) as \([2] = [-2] = [4] = \cdots\) (any of these names).
Similarly,
So, \([1] = [-1] = [3] = [-3] = [5] = \cdots\text{.}\)
We can use the properties of equivalence classes and the additional results we've proven to derive interesting consequences about equivalence relations. For instance, if two objects are in the same equivalence class, then they must be equivalent to one another. (This sounds obvious—try to prove it below!)
Checkpoint 4.1.18. Objects in the Same Class are Equivalent.
Given an equivalence relation \(R\) on a set \(S\text{,}\) and an equivalence class \([x]\text{,}\) show that for all \(a, b \in S\text{,}\)