Equivalence relation and the quotient set











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Good day everyone,



let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).



Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Good day everyone,



    let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).



    Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Good day everyone,



      let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).



      Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.










      share|cite|improve this question















      Good day everyone,



      let $sim$ be an equivalence relation on some set $E$, by definition we have $bar{x}={y in E mid x sim y}$ the equivalence class of x, and $E/sim$ the quotient set (set of all equivalence classes).



      Wouldn't $E/sim$ contain redundancies since if $x sim y$ with $x,y in E$ then $bar{x}=bar{y}$? Which is a problem because sets are composed of different elements.







      abstract-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 18 at 9:41

























      asked Nov 18 at 9:33









      archaic

      325




      325






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:49










          • Am I failing to notice something?
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:50










          • Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
            – Joey Kilpatrick
            Nov 18 at 9:50










          • Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:52










          • Not just that, how to explain ..
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:53


















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:39


















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
          Check This






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003309%2fequivalence-relation-and-the-quotient-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted










            If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:49










            • Am I failing to notice something?
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
              – Joey Kilpatrick
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:52










            • Not just that, how to explain ..
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:53















            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted










            If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:49










            • Am I failing to notice something?
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
              – Joey Kilpatrick
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:52










            • Not just that, how to explain ..
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:53













            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted






            If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            If $sim$ is an equivalence relation, then we know it is a reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relation. Only then can say that $sim$ partitions $E$ into equivalence classes. Let $x sim y$. Then for any $zin bar x$, we know that $xsim z$ and $y sim x$ (by the symmetry), and then $ysim z$ (transitivity). Therefore, if $x sim y$ then $bar x = bar y$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 18 at 9:39









            Joey Kilpatrick

            1,183422




            1,183422












            • Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:49










            • Am I failing to notice something?
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
              – Joey Kilpatrick
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:52










            • Not just that, how to explain ..
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:53


















            • Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:49










            • Am I failing to notice something?
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
              – Joey Kilpatrick
              Nov 18 at 9:50










            • Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:52










            • Not just that, how to explain ..
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:53
















            Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:49




            Yes and therefore $bar{x}$ and $bar{y}$ intersect hence only one should be considered in $E/sim$
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:49












            Am I failing to notice something?
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:50




            Am I failing to notice something?
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:50












            Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
            – Joey Kilpatrick
            Nov 18 at 9:50




            Not only do they intersect, we showed that they must be the exact same set. In $E/sim$ this corresponds to one equivalence class that is equal to $bar x$ and to $bar y$
            – Joey Kilpatrick
            Nov 18 at 9:50












            Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:52




            Alright I did a blunder here, thank you. I was thinking that since $x$ and $y$ are different elements of their own then each one should see its equivalent class in $E/sim$.
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:52












            Not just that, how to explain ..
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:53




            Not just that, how to explain ..
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:53










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:39















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:39













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            No, it doesn't. Given two sets $A,B$. Define $A=B$ iff $forall x [xin ALeftrightarrow xin B]$. Thus a set can be represented such that it contains an element multiple times and the ordering of elements in the set doesn't matter, e.g., ${1,2,3}={3,2,1} = {1,2,1,3,1}$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 18 at 9:37









            Wuestenfux

            2,6821410




            2,6821410












            • math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:39


















            • math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
              – archaic
              Nov 18 at 9:39
















            math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:39




            math.stackexchange.com/questions/934378/…
            – archaic
            Nov 18 at 9:39










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
            Check This






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
              Check This






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
                Check This






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Equivalence classes are defined over equivalence relations so them are well defined.
                Check This







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 18 at 9:38









                Kato

                534




                534






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003309%2fequivalence-relation-and-the-quotient-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                    How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                    QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater