equivalence relation vs equality
Apparently the equivalence class made with equality can only hold one element. The way that I see it, this means that 5-3 = 6-4 is true only because 6-4 is an element of an equivalence class that represents 1, like 7-6 and 111-110 is, and 5-3 is of the same equivalence class. That way we can say that X^R (Where X^R is the equivalence class of x) is equal to Y^R, when XRY. Because now the equivalence class containing X^R only holds a single element. Am I correct in assuming this? I think I'm being stupid...
Never thought I'd be befuddled by subtraction...
logic
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
add a comment |
Apparently the equivalence class made with equality can only hold one element. The way that I see it, this means that 5-3 = 6-4 is true only because 6-4 is an element of an equivalence class that represents 1, like 7-6 and 111-110 is, and 5-3 is of the same equivalence class. That way we can say that X^R (Where X^R is the equivalence class of x) is equal to Y^R, when XRY. Because now the equivalence class containing X^R only holds a single element. Am I correct in assuming this? I think I'm being stupid...
Never thought I'd be befuddled by subtraction...
logic
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
6-4 represents 1? Don't you mean 2?
– coffeemath
Nov 22 '18 at 3:52
...oops. lol...
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:11
add a comment |
Apparently the equivalence class made with equality can only hold one element. The way that I see it, this means that 5-3 = 6-4 is true only because 6-4 is an element of an equivalence class that represents 1, like 7-6 and 111-110 is, and 5-3 is of the same equivalence class. That way we can say that X^R (Where X^R is the equivalence class of x) is equal to Y^R, when XRY. Because now the equivalence class containing X^R only holds a single element. Am I correct in assuming this? I think I'm being stupid...
Never thought I'd be befuddled by subtraction...
logic
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
Apparently the equivalence class made with equality can only hold one element. The way that I see it, this means that 5-3 = 6-4 is true only because 6-4 is an element of an equivalence class that represents 1, like 7-6 and 111-110 is, and 5-3 is of the same equivalence class. That way we can say that X^R (Where X^R is the equivalence class of x) is equal to Y^R, when XRY. Because now the equivalence class containing X^R only holds a single element. Am I correct in assuming this? I think I'm being stupid...
Never thought I'd be befuddled by subtraction...
logic
logic
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
asked Nov 22 '18 at 3:43
pdf1234
6
6
6-4 represents 1? Don't you mean 2?
– coffeemath
Nov 22 '18 at 3:52
...oops. lol...
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:11
add a comment |
6-4 represents 1? Don't you mean 2?
– coffeemath
Nov 22 '18 at 3:52
...oops. lol...
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:11
6-4 represents 1? Don't you mean 2?
– coffeemath
Nov 22 '18 at 3:52
6-4 represents 1? Don't you mean 2?
– coffeemath
Nov 22 '18 at 3:52
...oops. lol...
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:11
...oops. lol...
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:11
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The equivalence relation $R$, with the equivalence sets $(a,b)^R$ defined as ${(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}:a-b=c-d}$ is not an equality relation because it is not the case that every equivalence class contains a single element.
As you noticed, there are many pairs that are R-equivalence to any pair.$$(5,3)^R={(2,0),(3,1),(4,2),(5,3),(6,4),(7,5),ldots}$$
You may be confused by what they mean by "made with equality".
They mean that the equivalence class $X^=$ is defined as ${Y: Y=X}$ . That's not equating some function of the terms, but the terms themselves.
$$begin{split}(a,b)^= &={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: (c,d)=(a,b)}\&={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: c=a land d=b}\&={(a,b)}end{split}$$
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008715%2fequivalence-relation-vs-equality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The equivalence relation $R$, with the equivalence sets $(a,b)^R$ defined as ${(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}:a-b=c-d}$ is not an equality relation because it is not the case that every equivalence class contains a single element.
As you noticed, there are many pairs that are R-equivalence to any pair.$$(5,3)^R={(2,0),(3,1),(4,2),(5,3),(6,4),(7,5),ldots}$$
You may be confused by what they mean by "made with equality".
They mean that the equivalence class $X^=$ is defined as ${Y: Y=X}$ . That's not equating some function of the terms, but the terms themselves.
$$begin{split}(a,b)^= &={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: (c,d)=(a,b)}\&={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: c=a land d=b}\&={(a,b)}end{split}$$
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
add a comment |
The equivalence relation $R$, with the equivalence sets $(a,b)^R$ defined as ${(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}:a-b=c-d}$ is not an equality relation because it is not the case that every equivalence class contains a single element.
As you noticed, there are many pairs that are R-equivalence to any pair.$$(5,3)^R={(2,0),(3,1),(4,2),(5,3),(6,4),(7,5),ldots}$$
You may be confused by what they mean by "made with equality".
They mean that the equivalence class $X^=$ is defined as ${Y: Y=X}$ . That's not equating some function of the terms, but the terms themselves.
$$begin{split}(a,b)^= &={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: (c,d)=(a,b)}\&={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: c=a land d=b}\&={(a,b)}end{split}$$
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
add a comment |
The equivalence relation $R$, with the equivalence sets $(a,b)^R$ defined as ${(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}:a-b=c-d}$ is not an equality relation because it is not the case that every equivalence class contains a single element.
As you noticed, there are many pairs that are R-equivalence to any pair.$$(5,3)^R={(2,0),(3,1),(4,2),(5,3),(6,4),(7,5),ldots}$$
You may be confused by what they mean by "made with equality".
They mean that the equivalence class $X^=$ is defined as ${Y: Y=X}$ . That's not equating some function of the terms, but the terms themselves.
$$begin{split}(a,b)^= &={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: (c,d)=(a,b)}\&={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: c=a land d=b}\&={(a,b)}end{split}$$
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
The equivalence relation $R$, with the equivalence sets $(a,b)^R$ defined as ${(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}:a-b=c-d}$ is not an equality relation because it is not the case that every equivalence class contains a single element.
As you noticed, there are many pairs that are R-equivalence to any pair.$$(5,3)^R={(2,0),(3,1),(4,2),(5,3),(6,4),(7,5),ldots}$$
You may be confused by what they mean by "made with equality".
They mean that the equivalence class $X^=$ is defined as ${Y: Y=X}$ . That's not equating some function of the terms, but the terms themselves.
$$begin{split}(a,b)^= &={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: (c,d)=(a,b)}\&={(c,d)inBbb N^{+2}: c=a land d=b}\&={(a,b)}end{split}$$
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
edited Nov 22 '18 at 4:16
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
answered Nov 22 '18 at 4:07
Graham Kemp
84.7k43378
84.7k43378
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
add a comment |
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
Does that mean then that 5-3 can not equal 2? I think that I am not understanding what "Equal" means. How can you define equal? If I say that a Hippo is equal to a Croc and that Hippo^= contains two element, doesn't that make the equality invalid?
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:37
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
@pdf1234 We have a choice of viewing $5-3$ and $6-4$ as two non-identical terms or as the same number, 2. The terms are in the same equivalence class of the equivalence relation "$t_1sim t_2$ iff $t_1$ and $t_2$ evaluate to the same number." When we decide we don't care about the terms themselves, only what they evaluate to, we quotient by this equivalence relation, effectively treating $sim$ as equality. This is the beauty of equivalence relations: they allow us to abstract away distinctions that don't matter and focus on the ones that do.
– spaceisdarkgreen
Nov 22 '18 at 5:29
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008715%2fequivalence-relation-vs-equality%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
6-4 represents 1? Don't you mean 2?
– coffeemath
Nov 22 '18 at 3:52
...oops. lol...
– pdf1234
Nov 22 '18 at 4:11