Equivalence relation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, an equivalence relation is a binary relation between two elements of a set which groups them together as being "equivalent" in some defined way. An equivalence relation between a and b is often denoted as "a ~ b" or "a ≡ b". By definition, equivalence relations have the properties of reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. In other words, for all elements a, b, and c of the set X, the following must hold for any equivalence relation defined by the symbol "~":

Reflexivity: a ~ a
Symmetry: if a ~ b then b ~ a
Transitivity: if a ~ b and b ~ c then a ~ c.

An equivalence relation does not necessarily involve strict equality or logical equivalence, although these are particular types of equivalence relations within the set of numbers and the set of logical theorems, respectively.

A set X together with an equivalence relation on X is called a setoid.

1 From order to equivalence via symmetry
2 Equivalence class, quotient set, partition
3 Generating equivalence relations
4 Algebraic characterizations
- 4.1 Transformation groups
- 4.2 Category theory
5 Equivalence relations and mathematical logic
6 Examples of equivalence relations
7 Examples of relations that are not equivalences
8 Euclid anticipated equivalence
9 See also
10 References
11 External links

[edit] From order to equivalence via symmetry

Just as order relations are grounded in ordered sets, sets closed under pairwise supremum and infimum, equivalence relations are grounded in partitioned sets, sets closed under bijections preserving partition structure. Since all such bijections map an equivalence class onto itself, such bijections are also known as permutations.

Order and equivalence relations are both transitive, but only equivalence relations are symmetric as well. If symmetry:

Is weakened to antisymmetry, the result is a partial order;
Is discarded entirely, the result is a preorder;
And reflexivity are both discarded, the result is a strict partial order.

Hence equivalence relations can be seen as the culmination of a hierarchy of order relations.

[edit] Equivalence class, quotient set, partition

Let X be a nonempty set with typical members a and b. Some definitions:

The set of all a and b for which a~b holds make up an equivalence class of X by '~'. Let [a] =: {x∈X : x~a} denote the equivalence class to which a belongs. Then all members of X equivalent to each other are also members of the same equivalence class: ∀a,b∈X (a~b ↔ [a]=[b]).
The set of all possible equivalence classes of X by '~', denoted X/~ =: {[x] : x∈X}, is the quotient set of X by '~'. If X is a topological space, there is a natural way of transforming X/~ into a topological space; see quotient space for the details.
The projection of '~' is the function π: X→X/~, defined as π(x) = [x], maps members of X into their respective equivalence classes by '~'.
The equivalence kernel of a function f is the equivalence relation, denoted Ef, such that xEfy ↔ f(x)=f(y). The equivalence kernel of a bijection is the identity relation.
A partition of X is a set P of subsets of X, such that every member of X is a member of a unique member of P. Each member of P is a cell of the partition. Moreover, the members of P are pairwise disjoint and their union is X.

Let X be finite with n elements. Since every equivalence relation over X corresponds to a partition of X, and vice versa, the number of possible equivalence relations on X equals the number of distinct partitions of X, which is the nth Bell number B_n:

$B_n=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{k^n}{ek!}.$

Theorem ("Fundamental Theorem of Equivalence Relations": Wallace 1998: 31, Th. 8; Dummit and Foote 2004: 3, Prop. 2):

An equivalence relation '~' partitions X.
Conversely, corresponding to any partition of X, there exists an equivalence relation '~' on X.

In both cases, the cells of the partition of X are the equivalence classes of X by '~'. Since each member of X belongs to a unique cell of any partition of X, and since each cell of the partition is identical to an equivalence class of X by '~', each member of X belongs to a unique equivalence class of X by '~'. Thus there is a natural bijection from the set of all possible equivalence relations on X and the set of all partitions of X.

Theorem on projections (Birkhoff and Mac Lane 1999: 35, Th. 19): Let the function f: X→B be such that a~b → f(a)=f(b). Then there is a unique function g: X/~→B, such that f = g(π). If f is a surjection and a~b ↔ f(a)=f(b), then g is a bijection.

[edit] Generating equivalence relations

An equivalence relation ~ on X is the equivalence kernel of its surjective projection π: X → X/~. (Birkhoff and Mac Lane 1999: 33 Th. 18). Conversely, any surjection between sets determines a partition on its domain, the set of preimages of singletons in the codomain. Thus an equivalence relation over X, a partition of X, and a projection whose domain is X, are three equivalent ways of specifying the same thing.

The intersection of any two equivalence relations over X (viewed as a subset of X×X) is also an equivalence relation. This yields a convenient way of generating an equivalence relation: given any binary relation R on X, the equivalence relation generated by R is the smallest equivalence relation containing R. Concretely, R generates the equivalence relation if:

a~b if and only if there exist elements x₁, x₂,...,x_n in X such that x₁ = a, x_n = b, and such that (x_i, x_{i +1}) or (x_{i +1}, x_i) is in R for every i = 1,...,n -1.

Note that the generated equivalence relation generated in this manner can be trivial. For instance, the equivalence relation '~' generated by:

The binary relation ≤ has exactly one equivalence class, X itself, because x~y for all x and y;
An antisymmetric relation has equivalence classes that are the singletons of X.

Let r be any sort of relation on X. Then r∪r^-1 is a symmetric relation. The transitive closure s of r∪r^-1 assures that s is transitive and reflexive. Moreover, s is the "smallest" equivalence relation containing r, and r/s partially orders X/s.

Equivalence relations can construct new spaces by "gluing things together." Let X be the unit Cartesian square [0,1]×[0,1], and '~' be the equivalence relation on X defined by ∀a,b∈[0,1]( (a,0)~(a,1) ∧ (0,b)~(1,b) ). Then the quotient space X/~ can be naturally identified with a torus: take a square piece of paper, bend and glue together the upper and lower edge to form a cylinder, then bend the resulting cylinder so as to glue together its two open ends, resulting in a torus.

Let G be a group and H a subgroup of G. Define an equivalence relation '~' on G such that a~b ↔ (ab^-1 ∈ H). The equivalence classes of '~'--also called the orbits of the action of H on G--are the right cosets of H in G. Interchanging a and b yields the left cosets.

[edit] Algebraic characterizations

[edit] Transformation groups

It is very well known that lattice theory captures the mathematical structure of order relations. It is much less known that transformation groups (some authors prefer permutation groups) and their orbits capture the mathematical structure of equivalence relations. See also Lucas (1973: §31).

Let '~' denote an equivalence relation over some nonempty set A, called the universe or underlying set. Let G denote the set of bijective functions over A that preserve the partition structure of A: ∀x∈A∀g∈G(g(x)∈[x]). Then the following three connected theorems hold (Van Fraassen 1989: §10.3):

'~' partitions A into equivalence classes. (This is the Fundamental Theorem of Equivalence Relations, mentioned above);
Given a partition of A, G is a transformation group under composition, whose orbits are the cells of the partition‡;
Given a transformation group G over A, there exists an equivalence relation '~' over A, whose equivalence classes are the orbits of G. (Wallace 1998: 202, Th. 6; Dummit and Foote 2004: 114, Prop. 2).

In sum, given an equivalence relation '~' over A, there exists a transformation group G over A whose orbits are the equivalence classes of A under '~'.

This transformation group characterisation of equivalence relations differs fundamentally from the way lattices characterize order relations. The arguments of the lattice theory operations meet and join are elements of some universe A. Meanwhile, the arguments of the transformation group operations composition and inverse are elements of a set of bijections, A→A.

‡Proof (adapted from Van Fraassen 1989: 246). Let function composition interpret group multiplication, and function inverse interpret group inverse. Then G is a group under composition, meaning that ∀x∈A∀g∈G ([g(x)] = [x]), because G satisfies the following four conditions:

G is closed under composition. The composition of any two members of G exists, because the domain and codomain of any member of G is A. Moreover, the composition of bijections is bijective (Wallace 1998: 22, Th. 6);
Existence of identity. The identity function, I(x)=x, is an obvious member of G;
Existence of inverse. Every bijective function g has an inverse g^-1, such that gg^-1 = I;
Composition associates. f(gh) = (fg)h. This holds for all functions over all domains (Wallace 1998: 24, Th. 7).

Let f and g be any two members of G. By virtue of the definition of G, [g(f(x))] = [f(x)] and [f(x)] = [x], so that [g(f(x))] = [x]. Hence G is also a transformation group (and an automorphism group) because function composition preserves the partitioning of A. $\square$

[edit] Category theory

The composition of morphisms central to category theory, denoted by concatenation, generalizes the composition of functions central to transformation groups. The two defining axioms of category theory assert that the composition of morphisms associates, and that the left and right identity morphisms exist. If all morphisms in a category were to have "inverses," the category would resemble a transformation group, whose close relation to equivalence relations has just been explained. A morphism f can be said to have an inverse when f is an automorphism, i.e., the domain and codomain of f are identical, and there exists a morphism g such that fg = gf = identity morphism. Hence the category-theoretic concept nearest to an equivalence relation is a category whose morphisms are all automorphisms.

[edit] Equivalence relations and mathematical logic

An implication of model theory is that the properties defining a relation can be proved independent of each other (and hence necessary parts of the definition) if and only if, for each property, examples can be found of relations not satisfying the given property while satisfying all the other properties. Hence the three defining properties of equivalence relations can be proved mutually independent as follows:

Reflexive and transitive: The relation ≤ on N;
Symmetric and transitive: The relation R on N, defined as aRb ↔ ab≠0;
Reflexive and symmetric: The relation R on Z, defined as aRb ↔ "a-b is divisible by at least one of 2 or 3."

Properties definable in first order logic that an equivalence relation may or may not possess include:

The number of equivalence classes is finite or infinite;
If finite, the number of equivalence classes is exactly n, n a natural number;
All equivalence classes have infinite cardinality;
All equivalence classes have size exactly n, n a natural number.

An equivalence relation with exactly 2 infinite equivalence classes is an easy example of a theory which is ω-categorical, but not categorical for any larger cardinal number.

Equivalence relations are not all that difficult or interesting, but can be a source of easy examples or counterexamples.

[edit] Examples of equivalence relations

The obvious example of an equivalence relation is the equality ("=") relation between elements of any set. Other examples include:

"Has the same birthday as" on the set of all human beings.
"Is in thermal equilibrium with" on physical objects.
"Is similar to" or "congruent to" on the set of all triangles.
Logical equivalence of statements in logic.
"Is isomorphic to" on models of a set of sentences.
"Has the same image under a function" on the elements of the domain of the function.
Similarity on the set of well-orderings. The resulting equivalence classes are the ordinal numbers.
In some axiomatic set theories other than the canonical ZFC, equinumerosity on the universe of:
- Finite sets gives rise to equivalence classes which are the natural numbers, the set of which is denoted N.
- Infinite sets gives rise to equivalence classes which are the transfinite cardinal numbers.
Let a,b,c,d∈N, and (a,b) and (c,d) be ordered pairs. The relations (a,b)~(c,d) if a+d = b+c, and (a,b)~(c,d) if ad = bc, are equivalence relations whose equivalence classes can be considered to be the integers and the rational numbers, respectively.
Let {r_i} and {s_i} be any two Cauchy sequences of rational numbers. The relation {r_i}~{s_i}, if the sequence (r_n - s_n) has limit 0, is an equivalence relation whose equivalence classes can be considered to be the real numbers.
"Is congruent to modulo n" on the integers.
Green's relations are five equivalence relations on the elements of a semigroup.
is parallel to, on the set on affine subspaces of an affine space.

[edit] Examples of relations that are not equivalences

The relation "≥" between real numbers is reflexive and transitive, but not symmetric. E.g. 7 ≥ 5 does not imply that 5 ≥ 7. It is, however, a partial order.
The relation "has a common factor greater than 1 with" between natural numbers greater than 1, is reflexive and symmetric, but not transitive. (2 and 6 have a common factor greater than 1, and 6 and 3 have a common factor greater than 1, but 2 and 3 do not have a common factor greater than 1).
The empty relation R on a non-empty set X (i.e. aRb is never true) is vacuously symmetric and transitive, but not reflexive (except when X is also empty).
The relation "is approximately equal to" between real numbers or other things, even if more precisely defined, is not an equivalence relation, because although reflexive and symmetric, it is not transitive, since multiple small changes can accumulate to become a big change.
The relation "is a sibling of" on the set of all human beings is not an equivalence relation. Although siblinghood is symmetric (if A is a sibling of B, then B is a sibling of A) it is neither reflexive (no one is a sibling of himself), nor transitive (since if A is a sibling of B, then B is a sibling of A, but A is not a sibling of A). Instead of being transitive, siblinghood is "almost transitive", meaning that if A~B, and B~C, and A≠C, then A~C.
Symmetry and transitivity do not imply reflexivity, unless every A is related to some B.

[edit] Euclid anticipated equivalence

Euclid's The Elements includes the following "Common Notion 1":

Things which equal the same thing also equal one another.

Nowadays, the property described by Common Notion 1 is called Euclidean (replacing "equal" by "are in relation with"). The following theorem reveals the connection between links Euclidian binary relations and equivalence relations:

Theorem. If a relation is Euclidian and reflexive, it is also symmetric and transitive.

Proof:

(aRc ∧ bRc) → aRb [a/c] = (aRa ∧ bRa) → aRb [reflexive; erase T∧] = bRa → aRb. This implies that R is symmetric.
(aRc ∧ bRc) → aRb [symmetry] = (aRc ∧ cRb) → aRb. Hence R is transitive. $\square$

Hence an equivalence relation is a relation that is Euclidean and reflexive. The Elements mentions neither symmetry nor reflexivity, and Euclid probably would have deemed the reflexivity of equality too obvious to warrant explicit mention. If this (and considering "equality" as an abstract relation) is granted, a charitable reading of Common Notion 1 credits Euclid with being the first to conceive of equivalence relations and their importance in deductive systems.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

Garrett Birkhoff and Saunders Mac Lane, 1999 (1967). Algebra, 2nd ed. Chelsea.
Castellani, E., 2003, "Symmetry and equivalence" in K. Brading and E. Castellani (eds.), Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections. Cambridge University Press: 422-433.
Dummit, D. S., and Foote, R. M., 2004. Abstract Algebra, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons.
John Randolph Lucas, 1973. A Treatise on Time and Space. London: Methuen. Section 31.
Bas van Fraassen, 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford Univ. Press.
Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag.