Why equality of relations is defined like that?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Suppose $R_1$ is a $n$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^n A_i$ and $R_2$ is a $m$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^m B_i$. The equality for two relations is defined as, $R_1=R_2$ if $n=m$ and $A_i=B_i$ for all $1le ile n$.
So, if we consider $A={1,2}$ and $B={a,b}$ and $C={a,b,c}$. Now, suppose $R_1$ is the relation, which is a subset of $Atimes B$ is ${(1,a),(2,b)}$ and $R_2$ is a subset of $Atimes C$ and also ${(1,a),(2,b)}$. Here as $Bneq C$, we don't have $R_1=R_2$ from the definition! But as a set they are same!
Can anyone explain me why equality of relation is defined like that? In other word if we have defined $R_1=R_2$ if they are equal as set then where we are doing wrong? am I missing something about definition of relation?
discrete-mathematics relations
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Suppose $R_1$ is a $n$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^n A_i$ and $R_2$ is a $m$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^m B_i$. The equality for two relations is defined as, $R_1=R_2$ if $n=m$ and $A_i=B_i$ for all $1le ile n$.
So, if we consider $A={1,2}$ and $B={a,b}$ and $C={a,b,c}$. Now, suppose $R_1$ is the relation, which is a subset of $Atimes B$ is ${(1,a),(2,b)}$ and $R_2$ is a subset of $Atimes C$ and also ${(1,a),(2,b)}$. Here as $Bneq C$, we don't have $R_1=R_2$ from the definition! But as a set they are same!
Can anyone explain me why equality of relation is defined like that? In other word if we have defined $R_1=R_2$ if they are equal as set then where we are doing wrong? am I missing something about definition of relation?
discrete-mathematics relations
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
You have missed a statement in your definition that the ordered pairs in the two relations must be the same. It isn't important to your question.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 15:46
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Suppose $R_1$ is a $n$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^n A_i$ and $R_2$ is a $m$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^m B_i$. The equality for two relations is defined as, $R_1=R_2$ if $n=m$ and $A_i=B_i$ for all $1le ile n$.
So, if we consider $A={1,2}$ and $B={a,b}$ and $C={a,b,c}$. Now, suppose $R_1$ is the relation, which is a subset of $Atimes B$ is ${(1,a),(2,b)}$ and $R_2$ is a subset of $Atimes C$ and also ${(1,a),(2,b)}$. Here as $Bneq C$, we don't have $R_1=R_2$ from the definition! But as a set they are same!
Can anyone explain me why equality of relation is defined like that? In other word if we have defined $R_1=R_2$ if they are equal as set then where we are doing wrong? am I missing something about definition of relation?
discrete-mathematics relations
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
Suppose $R_1$ is a $n$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^n A_i$ and $R_2$ is a $m$-ary relation which is a subset of $prod_{i=1}^m B_i$. The equality for two relations is defined as, $R_1=R_2$ if $n=m$ and $A_i=B_i$ for all $1le ile n$.
So, if we consider $A={1,2}$ and $B={a,b}$ and $C={a,b,c}$. Now, suppose $R_1$ is the relation, which is a subset of $Atimes B$ is ${(1,a),(2,b)}$ and $R_2$ is a subset of $Atimes C$ and also ${(1,a),(2,b)}$. Here as $Bneq C$, we don't have $R_1=R_2$ from the definition! But as a set they are same!
Can anyone explain me why equality of relation is defined like that? In other word if we have defined $R_1=R_2$ if they are equal as set then where we are doing wrong? am I missing something about definition of relation?
discrete-mathematics relations
discrete-mathematics relations
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
asked Nov 19 at 15:05
OppoInfinity
1719
1719
You have missed a statement in your definition that the ordered pairs in the two relations must be the same. It isn't important to your question.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 15:46
add a comment |
You have missed a statement in your definition that the ordered pairs in the two relations must be the same. It isn't important to your question.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 15:46
You have missed a statement in your definition that the ordered pairs in the two relations must be the same. It isn't important to your question.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 15:46
You have missed a statement in your definition that the ordered pairs in the two relations must be the same. It isn't important to your question.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 15:46
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your are correct that as sets $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the same. As you say, our definition of equality in relations demands that the domain and range sets be the same. A relation is defined as a triple of domain, range, and the pairs in the relation. In your example $R_1$ is surjective and $R_2$ is not.
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your are correct that as sets $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the same. As you say, our definition of equality in relations demands that the domain and range sets be the same. A relation is defined as a triple of domain, range, and the pairs in the relation. In your example $R_1$ is surjective and $R_2$ is not.
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your are correct that as sets $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the same. As you say, our definition of equality in relations demands that the domain and range sets be the same. A relation is defined as a triple of domain, range, and the pairs in the relation. In your example $R_1$ is surjective and $R_2$ is not.
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Your are correct that as sets $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the same. As you say, our definition of equality in relations demands that the domain and range sets be the same. A relation is defined as a triple of domain, range, and the pairs in the relation. In your example $R_1$ is surjective and $R_2$ is not.
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
Your are correct that as sets $R_1$ and $R_2$ are the same. As you say, our definition of equality in relations demands that the domain and range sets be the same. A relation is defined as a triple of domain, range, and the pairs in the relation. In your example $R_1$ is surjective and $R_2$ is not.
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
answered Nov 19 at 15:48
Ross Millikan
289k23195367
289k23195367
add a comment |
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%2f3005041%2fwhy-equality-of-relations-is-defined-like-that%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
You have missed a statement in your definition that the ordered pairs in the two relations must be the same. It isn't important to your question.
– Ross Millikan
Nov 19 at 15:46