Professional Courses
Industry-relevant training in Business, Technology, and Design to help professionals and graduates upskill for real-world careers.
Categories
Interactive Games
Fun, engaging games to boost memory, math fluency, typing speed, and English skills—perfect for learners of all ages.
Typing
Memory
Math
English Adventures
Knowledge
Enroll to start learning
You’ve not yet enrolled in this course. Please enroll for free to listen to audio lessons, classroom podcasts and take practice test.
Interactive Audio Lesson
Listen to a student-teacher conversation explaining the topic in a relatable way.
Union of Equivalence Relations
Unlock Audio Lesson
Let's discuss the union of two equivalence relations. If we have two equivalence relations, R1 and R2, on a set X, what can we say about their union?
I think both of them should remain reflexive, right?
Exactly! The union will always be reflexive if both R1 and R2 are reflexive. Can anyone tell me if the union is symmetric?
It should also be symmetric because if (a, b) is in R1 ∪ R2, then (b, a) must also be there.
Great! So union is reflexive and symmetric. Now, what about transitivity? Is R1 ∪ R2 guaranteed to be transitive?
I don't think so. I mean, we could have cases where (a, b) is in R1 and (b, c) is in R2, but (a, c) isn't in the union.
Right! It is essential to examine that. In fact, we can create a counterexample to see this clearly.
Could you show us a specific example?
Of course! Let's consider two equivalence relations defined on the set X = {a, b, c}. What if R1 = {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (a, b), (b, a)} and R2 = {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (b, c), (c, b)}. Can anyone calculate R1 ∪ R2?
That gives us {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (a, b), (b, a), (b, c), (c, b)}.
Correct! Now can someone check its transitivity by providing any two pairs that are there?
We have (a, b) and (b, c), but then (a, c) is missing.
Exactly! This proves the union is not always transitive. We conclude that the union of two equivalence relations is not necessarily an equivalence relation.
To summarize, while unions are reflexive and symmetric, they may not always be transitive.
Intersection of Equivalence Relations
Unlock Audio Lesson
Now, let’s look at the intersection of two equivalence relations, R1 & R2. Who can tell me if the intersection is also an equivalence relation?
I guess it should be an equivalence relation, but we need to prove it.
Correct! Let's start by proving that it's reflexive. If we know both R1 and R2 are reflexive, what follows?
That means both (a, a) pairs will be in R1 and R2, so they will definitely be in the intersection.
Great, so we established that R1 ∩ R2 is reflexive. What about symmetry?
If (a, b) is in R1 ∩ R2, then (a, b) must be in both R1 and R2, meaning (b, a) must also exist in both.
Exactly right! Now, what about transitivity?
If we have (a, b) and (b, c) in the intersection, since they are in both relations, we can conclude (a, c) must also be there!
Perfect! Since reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity hold for the intersection, we conclude that it is also an equivalence relation.
To summarize, unlike unions, the intersection of two equivalence relations is always an equivalence relation.
Condition for Union Equivalence
Unlock Audio Lesson
Let’s move on to a significant point: the union of two equivalence relations can be an equivalence relation under certain conditions. Can anyone suggest what those conditions might be?
Is it if R1 composed with R2 is equal to their union?
Correct! The statement says that R1 ∪ R2 is an equivalence relation if and only if R1 ∘ R2 equals R1 ∪ R2. Who can help me understand the implications here?
We need to show both implications separately: If R1 ∘ R2 = R1 ∪ R2, then R1 ∪ R2 is an equivalence relation, and vice versa!
Exactly! Let’s first assume that R1 ∘ R2 = R1 ∪ R2. So, what do we focus on proving?
We only need to check if the union is transitive since we know it’s already reflexive and symmetric.
Right on target! Now, we can check cases based on the combinations of the pairs belonging to R1 and R2. Can someone outline these cases?
Case 1 includes both pairs in R1 and Case 2 includes both in R2. What do we know about R1?
There, transitivity holds due to R1 being an equivalence relation!
Excellent! Then let’s consider doing something similar for the other cases. What's the conclusion we can have for the direction where we assume union is an equivalence relation?
We can solidly conclude R1 ∘ R2 = R1 ∪ R2!
Exactly! We've discussed the key properties and implications surrounding the condition under which the union is an equivalence relation today.
Introduction & Overview
Read a summary of the section's main ideas. Choose from Basic, Medium, or Detailed.
Quick Overview
Standard
This section examines equivalence relations on sets, detailing the properties of unions and intersections. While the union of two equivalence relations is not necessarily an equivalence relation, the intersection is always an equivalence relation. The discussion is supported by proofs and counterexamples, as well as a focus on the implications of these properties.
Detailed
Detailed Summary
In this section, we explore equivalence relations defined on a non-empty set X, discussing their critical properties, particularly focusing on unions and intersections. An equivalence relation is classified by three properties: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity.
The section begins with a discussion on the union of two equivalence relations, denoted as R1 and R2. It is established that while both R1 and R2 are reflexive and symmetric, their union, R1 ∪ R2, does not necessarily maintain transitivity. A counterexample using a set X = {a, b, c} illustrates this point. Here, we see that although R1 and R2 are both reflexive and symmetric, R1 ∪ R2 fails to be transitive, demonstrating that the union of two equivalence relations does not always yield another equivalence relation.
Next, we explore the intersection of two equivalence relations, R1 ∩ R2. This operation consistently produces an equivalence relation since reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity are preserved. The reasoning provided involves verifying these properties through proof methods.
Furthermore, the section addresses a condition for the union of two equivalence relations to be an equivalence relation itself: specifically stating that R1 ∪ R2 is an equivalence relation if and only if R1 ∘ R2 = R1 ∪ R2, with detailed proofs in both directions.
The exploration of equivalence relations concludes with the application of combinatorial properties and further implications within set theory, providing a foundation for understanding discrete structures in mathematics.
Youtube Videos
Audio Book
Dive deep into the subject with an immersive audiobook experience.
Union of Equivalence Relations
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
Let us start with question number 1(a). This question you are given two equivalence relations on a non-empty set X. You are asked to prove or disprove whether R1 ∪ R2 is an equivalence relation or not? So, it turns out that a union of two equivalence relations need not be an equivalence relation. This is demonstrated by this counterexample.
Detailed Explanation
In this chunk, we encounter two equivalence relations defined on a set. The task is to determine if their union also forms an equivalence relation. First, we established that the union of two equivalence relations might not satisfy all necessary properties. A counterexample is given, indicating that while the union may still be reflexive and symmetric, it can fail to be transitive, which is critical for it to remain an equivalence relation.
Examples & Analogies
Think of equivalence relations as two different ways to group friends into clubs. Each group has its own rules, such as everyone must know each other (equivalence property). However, if we combine the two groups (union), we may find that some friends are connected to each other via mutual contacts but are not directly linked in the new group. Hence, not every direct connection is maintained, indicating the union does not hold all group rules.
Intersection of Equivalence Relations
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
In part b of question 1, we are supposed to prove whether the intersection is an equivalence relation or not. It turns out that the intersection of two equivalence relations over the same set X is always an equivalence relation. Let us prove the three required properties.
Detailed Explanation
Here, the focus shifts to the intersection of two equivalence relations. We need to show that intersection meets all three key properties: reflexive, symmetric, and transitive. Since both relations being intersected are reflexive, their intersection will include the necessary pairs (a,a). Symmetry follows because if (a,b) is in both, so is (b,a). Transitivity is shown by considering arbitrary pairs (a,b) and (b,c) in the intersection; the properties of the original equivalence relations ensure that (a,c) is also included in the intersection.
Examples & Analogies
Imagine two clubs that have overlapping members. If one club states that 'everyone can join who likes pizza’ and the other ‘everyone who enjoys sports can join’, the intersection of members would represent individuals who both like pizza and sports. This intersection will have mutual connections (members) unique to both clubs, therefore forming a cohesive group (equivalence relation) that maintains similar social connections.
Union and Composition of Equivalence Relations
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
In question number 2, we are given two equivalence relations over a non-empty set and we want to prove that R1 ∪ R2 will be an equivalence relation if and only if the composition R1 ∘ R2 is equal to the R1 ∪ R2. We have to give two proofs.
Detailed Explanation
This chunk examines a critical condition for the union of two equivalence relations to remain an equivalence relation. It requires proving that the union is equivalent to the composition in both directions. By analyzing all possible cases where ordered pairs can belong to either relation or both, we show how the premises can assure us that the union will maintain transitive properties when it meets the composition condition.
Examples & Analogies
Consider two teachers who have their unique ways of assigning grades (equivalence relations). If a student is evaluated under one teaching method, passing criteria might be lenient, while the other may be strict. The condition that the overall grade (union of methods) reflects true understanding only holds if both methods are compatible and lead to the same grade criterion. Here, we see that without ensuring teaching styles don’t produce conflicting results in grades, we find an inconsistency.
Counting Equivalence Relations
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
In question number 3, we are defining a function P(n) which denotes the number of equivalence relations over set S consisting of n elements. So, P(1) means, number of possible equivalence relations over the set consisting of one element.
Detailed Explanation
In this segment, the discussion revolves around calculating the number of equivalence relations for varying set sizes. It introduces P(n), a function that represents the count of possible equivalence relations for a set with 'n' elements. The concept is grounded in principles of partitioning where every equivalence relation corresponds to a specific set division.
Examples & Analogies
Think of P(n) as the number of ways we can organize teams during a sporting event. If only one player shows up (P(1)), there’s just one way to organize them; however, with more players, specific groupings or team compositions become numerous, as arrangements grow exponentially, reflecting how we can combine groups for various match formats.
Partial Orderings with Hasse Diagrams
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
In question number 4, we are supposed to find out the number of partial orderings over a set S consisting of three elements. We can count the number of distinct Hasse diagrams.
Detailed Explanation
This segment analyzes the number of distinct Hasse diagrams big enough to visualize relationships between elements in a set with three members. Each diagram represents a unique type of partial ordering which adheres to reflexivity, antisymmetry, and transitivity. By categorizing diagrams based on their configurations, we determine the total ways to graphically represent these relations.
Examples & Analogies
Imagine a hierarchy in a company where employees (elements) showcase different roles. Even with just three positions, various combinations exist that determine who reports to whom (Hasse diagrams). With every arrangement reflecting a specific management style, understanding all these variations enables better navigation in organizational structure plans.
Minima in Partially Ordered Sets
Unlock Audio Book
Signup and Enroll to the course for listening the Audio Book
In question number 5, you are given an arbitrary poset. For any subset T of that set S an element x from that set T will be called a minimum element, if that element x is related to all other elements y of subset T.
Detailed Explanation
This chunk introduces the idea of a minimum element within subsets of a poset. By stating that every non-empty subset must have such an element, we are led towards showing the structure is not merely a partial order but a total order. Using definitions and properties, we explore how any two distinct elements from the set can be shown to be comparable.
Examples & Analogies
Consider a classroom of students (elements) where group assignments need a leader (minimum element). In every small group assigned for tasks, there must be someone who leads discussions. If every potential pairing of students leads to a designated leader, this structured collaboration ensures smooth teamwork, mirroring the concept of a total order as everyone gets acknowledged in every small subset decision-making.
Definitions & Key Concepts
Learn essential terms and foundational ideas that form the basis of the topic.
Key Concepts
-
Union of Equivalence Relations: The union of two equivalence relations is always reflexive and symmetric but not necessarily transitive.
-
Intersection of Equivalence Relations: The intersection of two equivalence relations is always an equivalence relation.
-
Condition for Union: The union of two equivalence relations is itself an equivalence relation if and only if their composition is equal to their union.
Examples & Real-Life Applications
See how the concepts apply in real-world scenarios to understand their practical implications.
Examples
-
Example of an equivalence relation: R defined on {1, 2, 3} where R = {(1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (1, 2), (2, 1)} is reflexive, symmetric, but to confirm transitivity, we check pairs.
-
Consider two relations over {a, b, c}: R1 = {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (a, b), (b, a)} and R2 = {(a, a), (b, b), (c, c), (b, c), (c, b)}. Their union R1 ∪ R2 would be reflective and symmetric but not transitive.
Memory Aids
Use mnemonics, acronyms, or visual cues to help remember key information more easily.
🎵 Rhymes Time
-
Reflexive means you return, symmetry and transpose your turn. Transitivity links A to C, without it, an equivalence won't be!
📖 Fascinating Stories
-
Imagine two friends holding hands — they both must return to each other (reflexivity), they can swap partners (symmetry), and if one helps the next, they should be linked too (transitivity).
🧠 Other Memory Gems
-
Remember 'RST' for 'Reflexive, Symmetric, Transitive' — essential for equivalence relations!
🎯 Super Acronyms
Use 'RST' to recall the key properties of equivalence relations
- Reflexive
- Symmetric
- Transitive.
Flash Cards
Review key concepts with flashcards.
Glossary of Terms
Review the Definitions for terms.
-
Term: Equivalence Relation
Definition:
A relation that is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.
-
Term: Union of Relations
Definition:
The set of all ordered pairs that are in at least one of the relations.
-
Term: Intersection of Relations
Definition:
The set of all ordered pairs that are in both relations.
-
Term: Reflexive Relation
Definition:
A relation R on a set X is reflexive if for every element a in X, (a, a) is in R.
-
Term: Symmetric Relation
Definition:
A relation R on a set X is symmetric if for all a, b in X, if (a, b) is in R, then (b, a) is also in R.
-
Term: Transitive Relation
Definition:
A relation R on a set X is transitive if for all a, b, c in X, if (a, b) is in R and (b, c) is in R, then (a, c) is also in R.