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.

In Lee, 'Introduction to Topological Manifolds', Appendix A, Exercise A.2 I am asked to prove that if $\mathcal C$ is a partition of $X$ there is a unique equivalence relation $\sim$ such that classes of equivalence of $\sim$ are elements of $\mathcal C$. Since the definition of difference/equality of equivalence relations was not given, I thought that it should be based on the equivalence classes of such a relation.

More formal, am I right stating that

There is a unique equivalence relation $\sim$ which admits sentence $S$ iff for any $\sim^1$ and $\sim^2$ admitting $S$ their classes of equivalence are the same?

share|improve this question
    
See this question. –  Zev Chonoles Oct 16 '11 at 16:35
    
@ZevChonoles: thank you, I was able to prove this fact - I just wonder what did he mean with the word unique. Though, if the relation is a set, then I know have to differ relations. Just would like to know if there is other definition of uniqueness –  Ilya Oct 16 '11 at 16:38
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

By definition, an equivalence relation on a set $S$ is a subset of $S\times S$ fulfilling some conditions. This gives you a natural notion of equality for equivalence relations: Two equivalence relations on $S$ are equal if they are given by the same subset of $S\times S$.

It is a general fact that an equivalence relation is uniquely determined by its equivalence classes. This is -- somewhat tautologically -- because two elements are equivalent if and only if they belong to the same equivalence class.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I'd define equality of equivalence relations, or any other relations, as follows. A relation $\sim_1$ is equal to a relation $\sim_2$ precisely if $$ \forall a\ \forall b\ (a\sim_1 b \text{ if and only if }a\sim_2 b). $$

And that would also apply to other relations than equivalence relations.

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.