A relation on is an equivalence relation if it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive.
If is an equivalence relation, then when two things are related in they are equivalent in some way.
To show relation is not an equivalence relation, simply show that it is missing on of the three properties.
Since equivalence is transitive, it divides into disjoint groupings where everything in a group is mutually related. Each group is called an equivalence class.
The group of items that is equivalent to is denoted , which is defined as
Ex: Let (ie, two items are related if their remainders when divided by 3 are the same).
One equivalence class is all of the integers that when divided by 3 leave remainder 0.
Another equivalence class is all of the integers that when divided by 3 leave remainder 1.
The last equivalence class is all of the integers that when divided by 3 leave remainder 2.
Exercise 2: Let . Suppose is an equivalence relation on . Suppose has two equivalence classes. Also , and . Write out as a set.
This is an exercise in deductive reasoning. They don't tell you all the relations, but they tell you enough to deduce the answer.
Because and we know and are in the same class and and are in the same class. This means , and are in the same class.
Since , those two are together, but since neither of them is related to , or , they must be in a separate class.
So, the two equivalence classes must be and . But, the question asks for the full relation. We know that every pair of elements in the same equivalence class is related — including self-pairs — so the key to writing the relation is to write all pairs for each equivalence class.
for x = a ... efor y = a ... eif x and y are in the same equivalence classprint (x,y)
Solution 2: .
Exercise 6: There are five different equivalence relations on the set . Describe them all.
Since each equivalence relation divides into equivalence classes, one way of doing this problem is to write out all the different ways of dividing into disjoint subsets. Each way of doing so could be turned into a corresponding relation, like in Exercise 2.
Solution 6: