Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We know that every equivalence relation, induced by a partition on a set for example $X$ , make some equivalence classes. Now, if a group $G$ acts on $X$ then the associated equivalence classes are exactly the orbits of $X$ under the action of $G$. In fact, if $x\in X$ then we know $[x]$ in which $[x]=\{x^g\mid g\in G\}$ as an equivalence classes for $X$. Here, I am facing an example in permutation groups as following

Let $G=\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Q,\le)$ be the group of permutations of $\mathbb Q$ which preserves the usual ordering $\le$ . Also, suppose that $G$ acts on $\mathbb Q^2$ transitively, so we have two orbits of this action; $\Delta:=\{(\alpha,\beta)\in \mathbb Q^2\mid \alpha<\beta\}$ and $\Delta^*:=\{(\beta,\alpha)\mid (\alpha,\beta)\in ∆\}$ clearly.

I am misunderstanding of what would be that representing $x$ above for one of these two orbits in the example? Could every element of $\Delta$ be taken as a representing element to show the equivalance class? Indeed, I am baffling of the way we denote $\mathbb Z_p=\{[0],[1],[2],\dots,[p-1]\}$ every time we need it. Thanks for sharing the thoughts.

share|improve this question
    
I would expect three orbits. I really don't see how the diagonal $$\overline{\Delta}=\{(\alpha,\alpha)\in\mathbb{Q}^2\mid \alpha\in\mathbb{Q}\}$$ could fail to be stable under the action of $G$. In other words, the action of $G$ is not transitive. It is transitive on $\mathbb{Q}$ though. –  Jyrki Lahtonen May 14 '12 at 8:05
    
@JyrkiLahtonen: Yes Exactly. I made a mistake to note that these orbits above are nondiagonal. –  B. S. May 14 '12 at 8:13
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Yes, if $\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle\in\Bbb Q^2$ is such that $\alpha<\beta$, then $[\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle]=\Delta$. To see this, you just have to show that if $\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle$ and $\langle\gamma,\delta\rangle$ are any members of $\Bbb Q^2$ with $\alpha<\beta$ and $\gamma<\delta$, there is some $g\in G$ such that $$\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle^g=\langle g(\alpha),g(\beta)\rangle=\langle\gamma,\delta\rangle\;.$$ In other words, you have to show that there is some $g\in G$ such that $g(\alpha)=\gamma$ and $g(\beta)=\delta$.

This isn’t too hard, if you define $g$ in three pieces. If $\xi\le\alpha$, let $g(\xi)=\xi+(\gamma-\alpha)$; this maps the ray $(\leftarrow,\alpha]$ in an order-preserving fashion onto $(\leftarrow,\gamma]$ by simply translating it $\gamma-\alpha$ units. Similarly, if $\xi\ge\beta$, let $g(\xi)=\xi+(\delta-\beta)$; this translates the ray $[\beta,\to)$ onto the ray $[\delta,to)$. To finish the job, you need only find a way to map the open interval $(\alpha,\beta)$ in order-preserving fashion onto the interval $(\gamma,\delta)$. This can be done easily with a linear function, but I’ll leave it to you for now to find one that works.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for saving me. –  B. S. May 14 '12 at 7:50
    
Is the bijective $f(x)$ = $\left(\frac{δ-γ}{β-α} \right)(x-α)+γ$ does what you left for me? –  B. S. May 16 '12 at 15:10
    
@Babak: Yes, that function will do nicely –  Brian M. Scott May 16 '12 at 18:58
add comment

In general, an equivalence class can be represented by any of its elements. We simply pick the ones it is most convenient to work with. In the case of $\mathbb{Z}_p$ we choose $0,1,\dots, p-1$ simply because we usually define arithmetic on $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and it's much easier to do arithmetic with the representative $3$ then with the representative $432534421423$.

In the case of the example you gave, I think $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$ are nice representatives.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.