[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
70 views6 pages

Lecture 14

Using equivalence relations to define rational numbers: [1] Rational numbers are defined as equivalence classes of pairs of integers under the equivalence relation (a,b) ~ (c,d) if and only if ad=bc. [2] Equivalence classes include all pairs that are equivalent, such as {(1,2), (2,4), (3,6), (-1,-2)} which represents the rational number 1/2. [3] It is shown that the relation ~ defines an equivalence relation on the set of integer pairs, making the definition of rational numbers as equivalence classes valid.

Uploaded by

nikhilkateya10
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views6 pages

Lecture 14

Using equivalence relations to define rational numbers: [1] Rational numbers are defined as equivalence classes of pairs of integers under the equivalence relation (a,b) ~ (c,d) if and only if ad=bc. [2] Equivalence classes include all pairs that are equivalent, such as {(1,2), (2,4), (3,6), (-1,-2)} which represents the rational number 1/2. [3] It is shown that the relation ~ defines an equivalence relation on the set of integer pairs, making the definition of rational numbers as equivalence classes valid.

Uploaded by

nikhilkateya10
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Using equivalence relations to define rational numbers

Consider the set

S = {(x, y) ∈ Z × Z : y 6= 0}.
We define a rational number to be an equivalence classes of
elements of S, under the equivalence relation

(a, b) ' (c, d) ⇐⇒ ad = bc.


An equivalence class is a complete set of equivalent elements.
I.e., it’s a set of elements of S, all of which are equivalent to each
other, and which contains all of the pairs that are equivalent to
those pairs. (Stricly speaking we need to use some properties
of equivalence relations to check that this makes sense . . . more
about that later.)
1
For example, with the equivalence relation above,
{(1, 2), (2, 4), (3, 6), (−1, −2), . . . }
would be one equivalence class. Another one would be
{(3, 4), (6, 8), (−3, −4), (−75, −100), . . . }.
We define a rational number to be one of these equivalence
classes. A particular element of the equivalence class is called a
representative. We can give names to these equivalence classes.
For example, we could call the first one
1
.
2
We could call the second one 3/4.

We can think of Z as being included in Q via the function


i:Z→Q i(a) = the equivalence class containingn (a, 1)
2
Now, there are lots of things we need to check for this definition
to make sense. First we need to check that

(a, b) ' (c, d) ⇐⇒ ad = bc.


really is an equivalence relation.

1. Reflexive: Is (a, b) ' (a, b) for all (a, b) ∈ S? Yes, because


ab = ba for all a, b, ∈ Z.

2. Symmetry. Is it true for all (a, b), (c, d) ∈ S that if (a, b) '
(c, d) then (c, d) ' (a, b)? Yes, because for all a, b, c, d ∈ Z, if
ad = bc then cb = da.

3
3. Transitivity. Is it true for all (a, b), (c, d), (e, f ) ∈ S that if
(a, b) ' (c, d) and (c, d) ' (e, f ), then (a, b) ' (e, f )? Here we
want to prove, for all a, b, c, d, e, f ∈ Z, with b 6= 0, d 6= 0, and
f 6= 0, that

if ad = bc and cf = de then af = be.


Well, if ad = bc and cf = de then adcf = bcde. We are given
d 6= 0. So if c 6= 0, then we can divide by cd and get af = be.

On the other hand, c = 0 then ad = 0 and de = 0. Since


d 6= 0, this means that a = e = 0. Therefore af = be because
both sides are 0.

4
Now, let’s return to some unfinished business. We informally
defined an equivalence class to be a set of elements of S such
that (a) all the elements are equivalent to each other, and (b)
it which contains all the elements of S which are equivalent to
some element of the equivalence class. If you think about this
definition, you will realize that we haven’t really proved that
these two conditions are compatible, or that equivalence classes
exist at all.

A leaner definition is: If R is an equivalence relation on a set S,


then we define the equivalence class of an element x ∈ S to be
the set of all elements of S equivalent to x.

Then we need to prove:


5
Theorem

1. Every element of S is in some equivalence class.

2. If x, y ∈ S, the equivalence classes of x and y are either equal


or disjoint (i.e. have empty intersection).

Proof of 1. By reflexive property, every element is in its own


equivalence class.

You might also like