0
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbb{R}^2 = \{Q = (a,b) | a,b\in \mathbb{R}\}$. Prove that if $q_1 = (a_1,b_1)$ and $q_2=(a_2,b_2)$ are equivalent, meaning $a_1^2+b_1^2 = a_2^2 +b_2^2$, then this gives an equivalence relation on $\mathbb{R}^2$. What is $[(1,0)], [(0,1)],[(2,2)],[(0,0)]?$ What does an equivalence class look like?

I am not sure how to do the second part of the question?

First part proof: Let $q_1$ and $q_2$ be equivalent then:

Reflexive: Let $a\sim b$ then $a \sim a$. So $a_1^2+a_1^2 = a_2^2 +a_2^2$ implies $2a_1^2 = 2a_2^2$ implies $a_1^2 = a_2^2$.

Symmetry: We must show $a\sim b$ and $b\sim a$. Thus let $a\sim b$ then we have $a_1^2+b_1^2 = a_2^2 +b_2^2$ are equivalent thus $b\sim a$ implies $b_1^2+a_1^2 = b_2^2 +a_2^2$ which are equivalent.

Transitive: $a\sim b$ and $b\sim c$ implies $a\sim c$. So $a_1^2+b_1^2 = a_2^2 +b_2^2$ and $b_1^2+c_1^2 = b_2^2 +c_2^2$ thus if we add them we have $a_1^2+2b_1^2+c_1^2 = a_2^2 +2b_2^2+c_2^2$ which implies $a_1^2+c_1^2 = a_2^2 +c_2^2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The statement of Reflexivity is not correct. For a relation to be reflexive, $a \sim a$ has to be true for all $a$. (Unlike the other two properties, it's not an implication.) You need to verify that $a = (a_1,a_2)$ is related to $a=(a_1,a_2)$ for EVERY point in $\mathbb{R}^2$. You shouldn't get an equation like $a_1^2 = a_2^2$, since that forces $a$ to be a very specific type of point. $\endgroup$ – Braindead Jan 30 '14 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ For symmetry, you are trying to show that $a\sim b$ IMPLIES $b\sim a$, which is different from "$a\sim b$ AND $b\sim a$". That is, under the assumption that $a\sim b$ is true, you are proving $b\sim a$ also holds. You have the right formulas, but the argument is a bit mixed up and it needs to be cleaned up. $\endgroup$ – Braindead Jan 30 '14 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ Something went very wrong with transitivity. It looks like you are mixing up your letters and your indices. Clearly write out what $a$,$b$, and $c$ are. $\endgroup$ – Braindead Jan 30 '14 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Braindead For reflexivity I am not sure I understand. If they are equivalent then there relation is $a_1^2+b_1^2 = a_2^2 +b_2^2$ so if a $a \sim a$ instead of $a\sim b$ then $a_1^2+a_1^2 = a_2^2 +a_2^2$ which implies $a_1^2 = a_2^2$. Is that not correct? If it isn't, then what will be the correct way of doing reflexivity? $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 30 '14 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ If $a_1^2 = a_2^2$, then you can't have points like $(1,2)$, since $1^2\ne 2^2$. This is too long to explain so I'll write it in an answer. $\endgroup$ – Braindead Jan 31 '14 at 1:35
1
$\begingroup$

To show that something is an equivalence relation, you need to show that it satisfies:

  1. Reflexivity
  2. Symmetry
  3. Transitivity

I will edit this post as needed. For now, let's focus on:

Reflexive Property

A relation $\sim$ is called reflexive if $a\sim a$ for all $a$ in your set.

In your problem, the set is $\mathbb{R}^2.$ In order for your $\sim$ to be an equivalence relation, no matter which point $a$ I pick from $\mathbb{R}^2$, $a\sim a$ has to be true.

The biggest problem you are having is that you are mixing up the indices and different letters.

Pick a point in $\mathbb{R}^2$. To avoid confusion with indices, let's just call this point $(x,y)$.

Let's verify and see if $(x,y)\sim (x,y)$.

According to the definition you have, $(a_1,b_1)\sim (a_2,b_2)$ means

$$a_1^2 + b_1^2 = a_2^2 + b_2^2$$

See how everything on the left had side of the equality comes from only the first point $(a_1,b_1)$? (And everything on the right hand side of the equality comes from only the second point $(a_2,b_2)$?)

With that in mind, can you rewrite $(x,y)\sim (x,y)$? Think about what should be on the left side of the "=" sign and what should be on the right side of the "=" sign.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If I rewrite $(x,y)\sim (x,y)$ then wouldn't it be $x^2+y^2 = x^2+y^2$? $\endgroup$ – Alex Feb 2 '14 at 3:31
  • $\begingroup$ Exactly! $(x,y) ~ (x,y)$ is true no matter what $x$ and $y$ are, because $x^2 + y^2 = x^2 + y^2$ is true no matter what $x$ and $y$ are! $\endgroup$ – Braindead Feb 2 '14 at 6:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the clarification! $\endgroup$ – Alex Feb 2 '14 at 7:57
1
$\begingroup$

A geometric interpretation of each equivalence class is being asked in the second part. What can you say about the sets of points on the plane which are equivalent?

Hint: Look at the distance (or really distance squared) of those points from the origin

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So $[(0,0)]$ is just the origin and for $[(1,0)]$ and $[(0,1)]$ are equivalent but what geometric interpretation will that produce? Just the lines at the points $[(1,0)]$ and $[(0,1)]$? $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 17 '14 at 2:34
  • $\begingroup$ think sir :). You have to look at the distances- that's the key. $\endgroup$ – voldemort Jan 17 '14 at 2:35
  • $\begingroup$ Did I do the first part correctly? $\endgroup$ – Alex Jan 17 '14 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ Yes you did. Also, Think of circles, and not lines. $\endgroup$ – voldemort Jan 17 '14 at 3:43

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.