0
$\begingroup$

I came across this in a university textbook.

Let $A$ be a nonempty set and $S$ is its partition. We define a relation $R$ as $$R = \{(a,b) \in A \times A ~|~ \exists M \in S \land a \in M \land b \in M\}$$

Then $R$ is equivalence relation on $A$ and $S$ is its partition.

Then in the textbook follows a proof of the statement, of which the first sentence is

Because all sets in $S$ are pairwise disjoint, the definition of relation $R$ is correct.

My question is: why wouldn't the definition of $R$ be correct if the sets of $S$ weren't disjoint? Of course that then $S$ wouldn't be a proper partition of $A$, but does it somehow affect the correctness of definition of $R$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe he means only that $R$ is a set of disjoint sets, and thus it can be an equiv rel. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 10 '17 at 13:58
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand your comment. $R$ is not a set of disjoint sets, it is a relation. $\endgroup$ – Gogis Jul 10 '17 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but the relation $R$ is an equivalence rel iff it partitions the set $A$ in disjoint sets $[x]_R$ called equiv classes. If the original partition $S$ is not "disjoint" we have that there are $M, N \in S$ such that for some $o$: $o \in M,N$. If so, $o \in [a]_R$ for all $a \in M$ and also $o \in [b]_R$ for all $b \in N$. Conclusion: the equiv classes "induced" by $M$ and $N$ are not disjoined. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 10 '17 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Maybe it was meant this way. But it's confusing, since it says that the definition is correct. I don't think that $R$ being an equivalence relation is a part of the definition of $R$. $\endgroup$ – Gogis Jul 10 '17 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ Correct... he want to prove that $R$ is an equiv rel that partitions the set $A$ in the same way as the original partition $S$. $\endgroup$ – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 10 '17 at 14:20
2
$\begingroup$

The definition of R is correct no matter what S may be. Even if S were empty, R would simply be empty. The significant point of the discussion however, is that R is an equivalence relation for A iff S is a partition of A.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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