Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
en.wikipedia.org
Chapter 1
Apartness relation
Apart redirects here. For the song by The Cure, see Wish (The Cure album). For the 2011 lm, see Apart (lm).
In constructive mathematics, an apartness relation is a constructive form of inequality, and is often taken to be more
basic than equality. It is often written as # to distinguish from the negation of equality (the denial inequality) , which
is weaker.
1.1 Description
An apartness relation is a symmetric irreexive binary relation with the additional condition that if two elements are
apart, then any other element is apart from at least one of them (this last property is often called co-transitivity or
comparison).
That is, a binary relation # is an apartness relation if it satises:[1]
1. (x#x)
2. x#y y#x
The negation of an apartness relation is an equivalence relation, as the above three conditions become reexivity,
symmetry, and transitivity. If this equivalence relation is in fact equality, then the apartness relation is called tight.
That is, # is a tight apartness relation if it additionally satises:
(x#y) x = y
In classical mathematics, it also follows that every apartness relation is the negation of an equivalence relation, and
the only tight apartness relation on a given set is the negation of equality. So in that domain, the concept is not useful.
In constructive mathematics, however, this is not the case.
The prototypical apartness relation is that of the real numbers: two real numbers are said to be apart if there exists
(one can construct) a rational number between them. In other words, real numbers x and y are apart if there exists
a rational number z such that x < z < y or y < z < x. The natural apartness relation of the real numbers is then the
disjunction of its natural pseudo-order. The complex numbers, real vector spaces, and indeed any metric space then
naturally inherit the apartness relation of the real numbers, even though they do not come equipped with any natural
ordering.
If there is no rational number between two real numbers, then the two real numbers are equal. Classically, then, if
two real numbers are not equal, one would conclude that there exists a rational number between them. However it
does not follow that one can actually construct such a number. Thus to say two real numbers are apart is a stronger
statement, constructively, than to say that they are not equal, and while equality of real numbers is denable in terms
2
1.2. REFERENCES 3
of their apartness, the apartness of real numbers cannot be dened in terms of their equality. For this reason, in
constructive topology especially, the apartness relation over a set is often taken as primitive, and equality is a dened
relation.
A set endowed with an apartness relation is known as a constructive setoid. A function f : A B where A and B
are constructive setoids is called a morphism for #A and #B if x, y : A. f (x) #B f (y) x #A y .
1.2 References
[1] Troelstra, A. S.; Schwichtenberg, H. (2000), Basic proof theory, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, 43
(2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 136, ISBN 0-521-77911-1, MR 1776976, doi:10.1017/CBO9781139168717.
Chapter 2
Binary relation
Relation (mathematics)" redirects here. For a more general notion of relation, see nitary relation. For a more
combinatorial viewpoint, see theory of relations. For other uses, see Relation (disambiguation).
In mathematics, a binary relation on a set A is a collection of ordered pairs of elements of A. In other words, it is a
subset of the Cartesian product A2 = A A. More generally, a binary relation between two sets A and B is a subset
of A B. The terms correspondence, dyadic relation and 2-place relation are synonyms for binary relation.
An example is the "divides" relation between the set of prime numbers P and the set of integers Z, in which every
prime p is associated with every integer z that is a multiple of p (but with no integer that is not a multiple of p). In
this relation, for instance, the prime 2 is associated with numbers that include 4, 0, 6, 10, but not 1 or 9; and the
prime 3 is associated with numbers that include 0, 6, and 9, but not 4 or 13.
Binary relations are used in many branches of mathematics to model concepts like "is greater than", "is equal to", and
divides in arithmetic, "is congruent to" in geometry, is adjacent to in graph theory, is orthogonal to in linear
algebra and many more. The concept of function is dened as a special kind of binary relation. Binary relations are
also heavily used in computer science.
A binary relation is the special case n = 2 of an n-ary relation R A1 An, that is, a set of n-tuples where the
jth component of each n-tuple is taken from the jth domain Aj of the relation. An example for a ternary relation on
ZZZ is " ... lies between ... and ..., containing e.g. the triples (5,2,8), (5,8,2), and (4,9,7).
In some systems of axiomatic set theory, relations are extended to classes, which are generalizations of sets. This
extension is needed for, among other things, modeling the concepts of is an element of or is a subset of in set
theory, without running into logical inconsistencies such as Russells paradox.
A binary relation R between arbitrary sets (or classes) X (the set of departure) and Y (the set of destination or
codomain) is specied by its graph G, which is a subset of the Cartesian product X Y. The binary relation R itself
is usually identied with its graph G, but some authors dene it as an ordered triple (X, Y, G), which is otherwise
referred to as a correspondence.[1]
The statement (x, y) G is read "x is R-related to y", and is denoted by xRy or R(x, y). The latter notation corresponds
to viewing R as the characteristic function of the subset G of X Y, i.e. R(x, y) equals to 1 (true), if (x, y) G, and
0 (false) otherwise.
The order of the elements in each pair of G is important: if a b, then aRb and bRa can be true or false, independently
of each other. Resuming the above example, the prime 3 divides the integer 9, but 9 doesn't divide 3.
The domain of R is the set of all x such that xRy for at least one y. The range of R is the set of all y such that xRy
for at least one x. The eld of R is the union of its domain and its range.[2][3][4]
4
2.2. SPECIAL TYPES OF BINARY RELATIONS 5
2.1.2 Example
Example: Suppose there are four objects {ball, car, doll, gun} and four persons {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}. Suppose
that John owns the ball, Mary owns the doll, and Venus owns the car. Nobody owns the gun and Ian owns nothing.
Then the binary relation is owned by is given as
R = ({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Ian, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)}).
Thus the rst element of R is the set of objects, the second is the set of persons, and the last element is a set of ordered
pairs of the form (object, owner).
The pair (ball, John), denoted by RJ means that the ball is owned by John.
Two dierent relations could have the same graph. For example: the relation
({ball, car, doll, gun}, {John, Mary, Venus}, {(ball, John), (doll, Mary), (car, Venus)})
is dierent from the previous one as everyone is an owner. But the graphs of the two relations are the same.
Nevertheless, R is usually identied or even dened as G(R) and an ordered pair (x, y) G(R)" is usually denoted as
"(x, y) R".[5]
injective (also called left-unique[8] ): for all x and z in X and y in Y it holds that if xRy and zRy then x = z. For
example, the green relation in the diagram is injective, but the red relation is not, as it relates e.g. both x = 5
and z = +5 to y = 25.
functional (also called univalent[9] or right-unique[8] or right-denite[10] ): for all x in X, and y and z in Y
it holds that if xRy and xRz then y = z; such a binary relation is called a partial function. Both relations in
the picture are functional. An example for a non-functional relation can be obtained by rotating the red graph
clockwise by 90 degrees, i.e. by considering the relation x=y2 which relates e.g. x=25 to both y=5 and z=+5.
6 CHAPTER 2. BINARY RELATION
one-to-one (also written 1-to-1): injective and functional. The green relation is one-to-one, but the red is not.
Totality properties (only denable if the sets of departure X resp. destination Y are specied; not to be confused with
a total relation):
left-total:[8] for all x in X there exists a y in Y such that xRy. For example, R is left-total when it is a function
or a multivalued function. Note that this property, although sometimes also referred to as total, is dierent
from the denition of total in the next section. Both relations in the picture are left-total. The relation x=y2 ,
obtained from the above rotation, is not left-total, as it doesn't relate, e.g., x = 14 to any real number y.
surjective (also called right-total[8] or onto): for all y in Y there exists an x in X such that xRy. The green
relation is surjective, but the red relation is not, as it doesn't relate any real number x to e.g. y = 14.
2.3. RELATIONS OVER A SET 7
A function: a relation that is functional and left-total. Both the green and the red relation are functions.
A bijection: a surjective one-to-one or surjective injective function is said to be bijective, also known as
one-to-one correspondence.[11] The green relation is bijective, but the red is not.
2.2.1 Difunctional
Less commonly encountered is the notion of difunctional (or regular) relation, dened as a relation R such that
R=RR1 R.[12]
To understand this notion better, it helps to consider a relation as mapping every element xX to a set xR = { yY
| xRy }.[12] This set is sometimes called the successor neighborhood of x in R; one can dene the predecessor
neighborhood analogously.[13] Synonymous terms for these notions are afterset and respectively foreset.[6]
A difunctional relation can then be equivalently characterized as a relation R such that wherever x1 R and x2 R have a
non-empty intersection, then these two sets coincide; formally x1 R x2 R implies x1 R = x2 R.[12]
As examples, any function or any functional (right-unique) relation is difunctional; the converse doesn't hold. If one
considers a relation R from set to itself (X = Y), then if R is both transitive and symmetric (i.e. a partial equivalence
relation), then it is also difunctional.[14] The converse of this latter statement also doesn't hold.
A characterization of difunctional relations, which also explains their name, is to consider two functions f: A C
and g: B C and then dene the following set which generalizes the kernel of a single function as joint kernel: ker(f,
g) = { (a, b) A B | f(a) = g(b) }. Every difunctional relation R A B arises as the joint kernel of two functions
f: A C and g: B C for some set C.[15]
In automata theory, the term rectangular relation has also been used to denote a difunctional relation. This ter-
minology is justied by the fact that when represented as a boolean matrix, the columns and rows of a difunctional
relation can be arranged in such a way as to present rectangular blocks of true on the (asymmetric) main diagonal.[16]
Other authors however use the term rectangular to denote any heterogeneous relation whatsoever.[7]
reexive: for all x in X it holds that xRx. For example, greater than or equal to () is a reexive relation but
greater than (>) is not.
irreexive (or strict): for all x in X it holds that not xRx. For example, > is an irreexive relation, but is not.
coreexive relation: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then x = y.[19] An example of a coreexive relation
is the relation on integers in which each odd number is related to itself and there are no other relations. The
equality relation is the only example of a both reexive and coreexive relation, and any coreexive relation is
a subset of the identity relation.
The previous 3 alternatives are far from being exhaustive; e.g. the red relation y=x2 from the
above picture is neither irreexive, nor coreexive, nor reexive, since it contains the pair
(0,0), and (2,4), but not (2,2), respectively.
8 CHAPTER 2. BINARY RELATION
symmetric: for all x and y in X it holds that if xRy then yRx. Is a blood relative of is a symmetric relation,
because x is a blood relative of y if and only if y is a blood relative of x.
antisymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy and yRx then x = y. For example, is anti-symmetric; so is >, but
vacuously (the condition in the denition is always false).[20]
asymmetric: for all x and y in X, if xRy then not yRx. A relation is asymmetric if and only if it is both
anti-symmetric and irreexive.[21] For example, > is asymmetric, but is not.
transitive: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and yRz then xRz. For example, is ancestor of is transitive,
while is parent of is not. A transitive relation is irreexive if and only if it is asymmetric.[22]
total: for all x and y in X it holds that xRy or yRx (or both). This denition for total is dierent from left total
in the previous section. For example, is a total relation.
trichotomous: for all x and y in X exactly one of xRy, yRx or x = y holds. For example, > is a trichotomous
relation, while the relation divides on natural numbers is not.[23]
Right Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if xRy and xRz, then yRz.
Left Euclidean: for all x, y and z in X it holds that if yRx and zRx, then yRz.
Euclidean: A Euclidean relation is both left and right Euclidean. Equality is a Euclidean relation because if
x=y and x=z, then y=z.
serial: for all x in X, there exists y in X such that xRy. "Is greater than" is a serial relation on the integers. But
it is not a serial relation on the positive integers, because there is no y in the positive integers such that 1>y.[24]
However, "is less than" is a serial relation on the positive integers, the rational numbers and the real numbers.
Every reexive relation is serial: for a given x, choose y=x. A serial relation can be equivalently characterized
as every element having a non-empty successor neighborhood (see the previous section for the denition of this
notion). Similarly an inverse serial relation is a relation in which every element has non-empty predecessor
neighborhood.[13]
set-like (or local): for every x in X, the class of all y such that yRx is a set. (This makes sense only if relations
on proper classes are allowed.) The usual ordering < on the class of ordinal numbers is set-like, while its inverse
> is not.
A relation that is reexive, symmetric, and transitive is called an equivalence relation. A relation that is symmetric,
transitive, and serial is also reexive. A relation that is only symmetric and transitive (without necessarily being
reexive) is called a partial equivalence relation.
A relation that is reexive, antisymmetric, and transitive is called a partial order. A partial order that is total is called
a total order, simple order, linear order, or a chain.[25] A linear order where every nonempty subset has a least element
is called a well-order.
Union: R S X Y, dened as R S = { (x, y) | (x, y) R or (x, y) S }. For example, is the union of >
and =.
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, and S is a binary relation over Y and Z, then the following is a binary relation
over X and Z: (see main article composition of relations)
2.4. OPERATIONS ON BINARY RELATIONS 9
Composition: S R, also denoted R ; S (or R S), dened as S R = { (x, z) | there exists y Y, such that (x, y)
R and (y, z) S }. The order of R and S in the notation S R, used here agrees with the standard notational
order for composition of functions. For example, the composition is mother of is parent of yields is
maternal grandparent of, while the composition is parent of is mother of yields is grandmother of.
A relation R on sets X and Y is said to be contained in a relation S on X and Y if R is a subset of S, that is, if x R y
always implies x S y. In this case, if R and S disagree, R is also said to be smaller than S. For example, > is contained
in .
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following is a binary relation over Y and X:
Inverse or converse: R 1 , dened as R 1 = { (y, x) | (x, y) R }. A binary relation over a set is equal to its
inverse if and only if it is symmetric. See also duality (order theory). For example, is less than (<) is the
inverse of is greater than (>).
If R is a binary relation over X, then each of the following is a binary relation over X:
Reexive closure: R = , dened as R = = { (x, x) | x X } R or the smallest reexive relation over X containing
R. This can be proven to be equal to the intersection of all reexive relations containing R.
Reexive reduction: R , dened as R
= R \ { (x, x) | x X } or the largest irreexive relation over X
contained in R.
Transitive closure: R + , dened as the smallest transitive relation over X containing R. This can be seen to be
equal to the intersection of all transitive relations containing R.
Reexive transitive closure: R *, dened as R * = (R + ) = , the smallest preorder containing R.
Reexive transitive symmetric closure: R , dened as the smallest equivalence relation over X containing
R.
2.4.1 Complement
If R is a binary relation over X and Y, then the following too:
The complement S is dened as x S y if not x R y. For example, on real numbers, is the complement of >.
2.4.2 Restriction
The restriction of a binary relation on a set X to a subset S is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x and
y are in S.
If a relation is reexive, irreexive, symmetric, antisymmetric, asymmetric, transitive, total, trichotomous, a partial
order, total order, strict weak order, total preorder (weak order), or an equivalence relation, its restrictions are too.
However, the transitive closure of a restriction is a subset of the restriction of the transitive closure, i.e., in general
not equal. For example, restricting the relation "x is parent of y" to females yields the relation "x is mother of
the woman y"; its transitive closure doesn't relate a woman with her paternal grandmother. On the other hand, the
10 CHAPTER 2. BINARY RELATION
transitive closure of is parent of is is ancestor of"; its restriction to females does relate a woman with her paternal
grandmother.
Also, the various concepts of completeness (not to be confused with being total) do not carry over to restrictions.
For example, on the set of real numbers a property of the relation "" is that every non-empty subset S of R with an
upper bound in R has a least upper bound (also called supremum) in R. However, for a set of rational numbers this
supremum is not necessarily rational, so the same property does not hold on the restriction of the relation "" to the
set of rational numbers.
The left-restriction (right-restriction, respectively) of a binary relation between X and Y to a subset S of its domain
(codomain) is the set of all pairs (x, y) in the relation for which x (y) is an element of S.
the number of equivalence relations is the number of partitions, which is the Bell number.
The binary relations can be grouped into pairs (relation, complement), except that for n = 0 the relation is its own
complement. The non-symmetric ones can be grouped into quadruples (relation, complement, inverse, inverse com-
plement).
greater than
greater than or equal to
less than
less than or equal to
divides (evenly)
is a subset of
equivalence relations:
equality
is parallel to (for ane spaces)
is in bijection with
isomorphy
independency relation, a symmetric, irreexive relation which is the complement of some dependency relation.
Hasse diagram
Incidence structure
Logic of relatives
Order theory
Triadic relation
2.9 Notes
[1] Encyclopedic dictionary of Mathematics. MIT. 2000. pp. 13301331. ISBN 0-262-59020-4.
[2] Suppes, Patrick (1972) [originally published by D. van Nostrand Company in 1960]. Axiomatic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN
0-486-61630-4.
[3] Smullyan, Raymond M.; Fitting, Melvin (2010) [revised and corrected republication of the work originally published in
1996 by Oxford University Press, New York]. Set Theory and the Continuum Problem. Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-47484-7.
[4] Levy, Azriel (2002) [republication of the work published by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York in 1979].
Basic Set Theory. Dover. ISBN 0-486-42079-5.
[5] Megill, Norman (5 August 1993). df-br (Metamath Proof Explorer)". Retrieved 18 November 2016.
12 CHAPTER 2. BINARY RELATION
[6] Christodoulos A. Floudas; Panos M. Pardalos (2008). Encyclopedia of Optimization (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business
Media. pp. 299300. ISBN 978-0-387-74758-3.
[7] Michael Winter (2007). Goguen Categories: A Categorical Approach to L-fuzzy Relations. Springer. pp. xxi. ISBN
978-1-4020-6164-6.
[8] Kilp, Knauer and Mikhalev: p. 3. The same four denitions appear in the following:
Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook.
Springer Science & Business Media. p. 506. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
Eike Best (1996). Semantics of Sequential and Parallel Programs. Prentice Hall. pp. 1921. ISBN 978-0-13-
460643-9.
Robert-Christoph Riemann (1999). Modelling of Concurrent Systems: Structural and Semantical Methods in the High
Level Petri Net Calculus. Herbert Utz Verlag. pp. 2122. ISBN 978-3-89675-629-9.
[9] Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7, Chapt. 5
[10] Ms, Stephan (2007), Reasoning on Spatial Semantic Integrity Constraints, Spatial Information Theory: 8th International
Conference, COSIT 2007, Melbourne, Australia, September 1923, 2007, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
4736, Springer, pp. 285302, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74788-8_18
[11] Note that the use of correspondence here is narrower than as general synonym for binary relation.
[12] Chris Brink; Wolfram Kahl; Gunther Schmidt (1997). Relational Methods in Computer Science. Springer Science &
Business Media. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-211-82971-4.
[13] Yao, Y. (2004). Semantics of Fuzzy Sets in Rough Set Theory. Transactions on Rough Sets II. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. 3135. p. 309. ISBN 978-3-540-23990-1. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27778-1_15.
[14] William Craig (2006). Semigroups Underlying First-order Logic. American Mathematical Soc. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-8218-
6588-0.
[15] Gumm, H. P.; Zarrad, M. (2014). Coalgebraic Simulations and Congruences. Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science.
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 8446. p. 118. ISBN 978-3-662-44123-7. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44124-4_7.
[16] Julius Richard Bchi (1989). Finite Automata, Their Algebras and Grammars: Towards a Theory of Formal Expressions.
Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 3537. ISBN 978-1-4613-8853-1.
[17] M. E. Mller (2012). Relational Knowledge Discovery. Cambridge University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-521-19021-3.
[18] Peter J. Pahl; Rudolf Damrath (2001). Mathematical Foundations of Computational Engineering: A Handbook. Springer
Science & Business Media. p. 496. ISBN 978-3-540-67995-0.
[19] Fonseca de Oliveira, J. N., & Pereira Cunha Rodrigues, C. D. J. (2004). Transposing Relations: From Maybe Functions
to Hash Tables. In Mathematics of Program Construction (p. 337).
[20] Smith, Douglas; Eggen, Maurice; St. Andre, Richard (2006), A Transition to Advanced Mathematics (6th ed.), Brooks/Cole,
p. 160, ISBN 0-534-39900-2
[21] Nievergelt, Yves (2002), Foundations of Logic and Mathematics: Applications to Computer Science and Cryptography,
Springer-Verlag, p. 158.
[22] Flaka, V.; Jeek, J.; Kepka, T.; Kortelainen, J. (2007). Transitive Closures of Binary Relations I (PDF). Prague: School
of Mathematics Physics Charles University. p. 1. Lemma 1.1 (iv). This source refers to asymmetric relations as strictly
antisymmetric.
[24] Yao, Y.Y.; Wong, S.K.M. (1995). Generalization of rough sets using relationships between attribute values (PDF).
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Joint Conference on Information Sciences: 3033..
[25] Joseph G. Rosenstein, Linear orderings, Academic Press, 1982, ISBN 0-12-597680-1, p. 4
[26] Tarski, Alfred; Givant, Steven (1987). A formalization of set theory without variables. American Mathematical Society. p.
3. ISBN 0-8218-1041-3.
2.10. REFERENCES 13
2.10 References
M. Kilp, U. Knauer, A.V. Mikhalev, Monoids, Acts and Categories: with Applications to Wreath Products and
Graphs, De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics vol. 29, Walter de Gruyter, 2000, ISBN 3-11-015248-7.
Gunther Schmidt, 2010. Relational Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-76268-7.
Equivalence relation
This article is about the mathematical concept. For the patent doctrine, see Doctrine of equivalents.
In mathematics, an equivalence relation is a binary relation that is at the same time a reexive relation, a symmetric
relation and a transitive relation. As a consequence of these properties an equivalence relation provides a partition of
a set into equivalence classes.
3.1 Notation
Although various notations are used throughout the literature to denote that two elements a and b of a set are equivalent
with respect to an equivalence relation R, the most common are "a ~ b" and "a b", which are used when R is the
obvious relation being referenced, and variations of "a ~R b", "a R b", or "aRb" otherwise.
3.2 Denition
A given binary relation ~ on a set X is said to be an equivalence relation if and only if it is reexive, symmetric and
transitive. That is, for all a, b and c in X:
a ~ a. (Reexivity)
a ~ b if and only if b ~ a. (Symmetry)
if a ~ b and b ~ c then a ~ c. (Transitivity)
X together with the relation ~ is called a setoid. The equivalence class of a under ~, denoted [a] , is dened as
[a] = {b X | a b} .
3.3 Examples
14
3.4. CONNECTIONS TO OTHER RELATIONS 15
Has the same image under a function" on the elements of the domain of the function.
The relation has a common factor greater than 1 with between natural numbers greater than 1, is reexive
and symmetric, but not transitive. (Example: The natural numbers 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 reexive. (If X is also empty then R is reexive.)
The relation is approximately equal to between real numbers, even if more precisely dened, is not an equiv-
alence relation, because although reexive and symmetric, it is not transitive, since multiple small changes can
accumulate to become a big change. However, if the approximation is dened asymptotically, for example by
saying that two functions f and g are approximately equal near some point if the limit of f g is 0 at that point,
then this denes an equivalence relation.
Equality is both an equivalence relation and a partial order. Equality is also the only relation on a set that
is reexive, symmetric and antisymmetric. In algebraic expressions, equal variables may be substituted for
one another, a facility that is not available for equivalence related variables. The equivalence classes of an
equivalence relation can substitute for one another, but not individuals within a class.
A partial equivalence relation is transitive and symmetric. Transitive and symmetric imply reexive if and only
if for all a X, there exists a b X such that a ~ b.
A reexive and symmetric relation is a dependency relation, if nite, and a tolerance relation if innite.
A congruence relation is an equivalence relation whose domain X is also the underlying set for an algebraic
structure, and which respects the additional structure. In general, congruence relations play the role of kernels
of homomorphisms, and the quotient of a structure by a congruence relation can be formed. In many important
cases congruence relations have an alternative representation as substructures of the structure on which they
are dened. E.g. the congruence relations on groups correspond to the normal subgroups.
Any equivalence relation is the negation of an apartness relation, though the converse statement only holds in
classical mathematics (as opposed to constructive mathematics), since it is equivalent to the law of excluded
middle.
16 CHAPTER 3. EQUIVALENCE RELATION
A subset Y of X such that a ~ b holds for all a and b in Y, and never for a in Y and b outside Y, is called an equivalence
class of X by ~. Let [a] := {x X | a x} denote the equivalence class to which a belongs. All elements of X
equivalent to each other are also elements of the same equivalence class.
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.
3.6.3 Projection
Main article: Projection (relational algebra)
The projection of ~ is the function : X X/ dened by (x) = [x] which maps elements of X into their
respective equivalence classes by ~.
Theorem on projections:[1] 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. If f is a surjection and a ~ b f(a) = f(b), then g is a
bijection.
3.6.5 Partition
Main article: Partition of a set
3.7. FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS 17
A partition of X is a set P of nonempty subsets of X, such that every element of X is an element of a single element
of P. Each element of P is a cell of the partition. Moreover, the elements of P are pairwise disjoint and their union
is X.
Let X be a nite set 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 Bn:
1 kn
Bn = ,
e k!
k=0
where the above is one of the ways to write the nth Bell number.
In both cases, the cells of the partition of X are the equivalence classes of X by ~. Since each element 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 element of X belongs to a unique equivalence class of X by ~. Thus there is a natural bijection between the
set of all possible equivalence relations on X and the set of all partitions of X.
If ~ and are two equivalence relations on the same set S, and a~b implies ab for all a,b S, then is said to be a
coarser relation than ~, and ~ is a ner relation than . Equivalently,
~ is ner than if every equivalence class of ~ is a subset of an equivalence class of , and thus every equivalence
class of is a union of equivalence classes of ~.
The equality equivalence relation is the nest equivalence relation on any set, while the trivial relation that makes all
pairs of elements related is the coarsest.
The relation "~ is ner than " on the collection of all equivalence relations on a xed set is itself a partial order
relation, which makes the collection a geometric lattice.[5]
Given any set X, there is an equivalence relation over the set [XX] of all possible functions XX. Two such
functions are deemed equivalent when their respective sets of xpoints have the same cardinality, corresponding
to cycles of length one in a permutation. Functions equivalent in this manner form an equivalence class on
[XX], and these equivalence classes partition [XX].
An equivalence relation ~ on X is the equivalence kernel of its surjective projection : X X/~.[6] 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 collection of equivalence relations over X (binary relations 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 a ~ b if and only if there exist elements x1 , x2 , ..., xn in X
such that a = x1 , b = xn, and (xi,xi )R or (xi,xi)R, i = 1, ..., n1.
Note that the equivalence relation generated in this manner can be trivial. For instance, the equivalence
relation ~ generated by any total order on X has exactly one equivalence class, X itself, because x ~ y for
all x and y. As another example, any subset of the identity relation on X has equivalence classes that are
the singletons of X.
Equivalence relations can construct new spaces by gluing things together. Let X be the unit Cartesian square
[0,1] [0,1], and let ~ be the equivalence relation on X dened by a, b [0,1] ((a, 0) ~ (a, 1) (0, b) ~ (1, b)).
Then the quotient space X/~ can be naturally identied (homeomorphism) 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.
~ 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 parti-
tion;
Given a transformation group G over A, there exists an equivalence relation ~ over A, whose equivalence classes
are the orbits of G.[8][9]
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 ~.
3.11. EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS AND MATHEMATICAL LOGIC 19
This transformation group characterisation of equivalence relations diers fundamentally from the way lattices char-
acterize 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.
Moving to groups in general, let H be a subgroup of some group G. Let ~ be an equivalence relation on G, such that a
~ b (ab1 H). The equivalence classes of ~also called the orbits of the action of H on Gare the right cosets
of H in G. Interchanging a and b yields the left cosets.
Proof.[10] 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 satises the following
four conditions:
G is closed under composition. The composition of any two elements of G exists, because the domain and
codomain of any element of G is A. Moreover, the composition of bijections is bijective;[11]
Existence of inverse function. Every bijective function g has an inverse g1 , such that gg1 = I;
Composition associates. f(gh) = (fg)h. This holds for all functions over all domains.[12]
Let f and g be any two elements of G. By virtue of the denition 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.
Related thinking can be found in Rosen (2008: chpt. 10).
Whereas the notion of free equivalence relation does not exist, that of a free groupoid on a directed graph
does. Thus it is meaningful to speak of a presentation of an equivalence relation, i.e., a presentation of the
corresponding groupoid;
Bundles of groups, group actions, sets, and equivalence relations can be regarded as special cases of the notion
of groupoid, a point of view that suggests a number of analogies;
In many contexts quotienting, and hence the appropriate equivalence relations often called congruences, are
important. This leads to the notion of an internal groupoid in a category.[13]
3.10.3 Lattices
The possible equivalence relations on any set X, when ordered by set inclusion, form a complete lattice, called Con
X by convention. The canonical map ker: X^X Con X, relates the monoid X^X of all functions on X and Con X.
ker is surjective but not injective. Less formally, the equivalence relation ker on X, takes each function f: XX to
its kernel ker f. Likewise, ker(ker) is an equivalence relation on X^X.
An implication of model theory is that the properties dening a relation can be proved independent of each other
(and hence necessary parts of the denition) 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 dening properties of
equivalence relations can be proved mutually independent by the following three examples:
Properties denable in rst-order logic that an equivalence relation may or may not possess include:
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). By relation is meant a binary relation, in which aRb is generally distinct from bRa. A Euclidean relation
thus comes in two forms:
Theorem If a relation is (left or right) Euclidean and reexive, it is also symmetric and transitive.
Proof for a left-Euclidean relation
(aRc bRc) aRb [a/c] = (aRa bRa) aRb [reexive; erase T] = bRa aRb. Hence R is symmetric.
(aRc bRc) aRb [symmetry] = (aRc cRb) aRb. Hence R is transitive.
with an analogous proof for a right-Euclidean relation. Hence an equivalence relation is a relation that is Euclidean
and reexive. The Elements mentions neither symmetry nor reexivity, and Euclid probably would have deemed the
reexivity of equality too obvious to warrant explicit mention.
3.14 Notes
[1] Garrett Birkho and Saunders Mac Lane, 1999 (1967). Algebra, 3rd ed. p. 35, Th. 19. Chelsea.
[2] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. p. 31, Th. 8. Springer-Verlag.
[3] Dummit, D. S., and Foote, R. M., 2004. Abstract Algebra, 3rd ed. p. 3, Prop. 2. John Wiley & Sons.
[4] Karel Hrbacek & Thomas Jech (1999) Introduction to Set Theory, 3rd edition, pages 2932, Marcel Dekker
[5] Birkho, Garrett (1995), Lattice Theory, Colloquium Publications, 25 (3rd ed.), American Mathematical Society, ISBN
9780821810255. Sect. IV.9, Theorem 12, page 95
[6] Garrett Birkho and Saunders Mac Lane, 1999 (1967). Algebra, 3rd ed. p. 33, Th. 18. Chelsea.
[7] Rosen (2008), pp. 24345. Less clear is 10.3 of Bas van Fraassen, 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford Univ. Press.
[8] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag: 202, Th. 6.
[9] Dummit, D. S., and Foote, R. M., 2004. Abstract Algebra, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons: 114, Prop. 2.
[10] Bas van Fraassen, 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford Univ. Press: 246.
[11] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag: 22, Th. 6.
[12] Wallace, D. A. R., 1998. Groups, Rings and Fields. Springer-Verlag: 24, Th. 7.
[13] Borceux, F. and Janelidze, G., 2001. Galois theories, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80309-8
3.15 References
Brown, Ronald, 2006. Topology and Groupoids. Booksurge LLC. ISBN 1-4196-2722-8.
Castellani, E., 2003, Symmetry and equivalence in Brading, Katherine, and E. Castellani, eds., Symmetries
in Physics: Philosophical Reections. Cambridge Univ. Press: 422-433.
Robert Dilworth and Crawley, Peter, 1973. Algebraic Theory of Lattices. Prentice Hall. Chpt. 12 discusses
how equivalence relations arise in lattice theory.
Higgins, P.J., 1971. Categories and groupoids. Van Nostrand. Downloadable since 2005 as a TAC Reprint.
John Randolph Lucas, 1973. A Treatise on Time and Space. London: Methuen. Section 31.
Rosen, Joseph (2008) Symmetry Rules: How Science and Nature are Founded on Symmetry. Springer-Verlag.
Mostly chpts. 9,10.
Raymond Wilder (1965) Introduction to the Foundations of Mathematics 2nd edition, Chapter 2-8: Axioms
dening equivalence, pp 4850, John Wiley & Sons.
In mathematics, a partial equivalence relation (often abbreviated as PER, in older literature also called restricted
equivalence relation) R on a set X is a relation that is symmetric and transitive. In other words, it holds for all
a, b, c X that:
4.2 Examples
A simple example of a PER that is not an equivalence relation is the empty relation R = (unless X = , in which
case the empty relation is an equivalence relation (and is the only relation on X )).
23
24 CHAPTER 4. PARTIAL EQUIVALENCE RELATION
is a partial equivalence relation but not an equivalence relation. It possesses the symmetry and transitivity properties,
but it is not reexive since if f (x) is not dened then x x in fact, for such an x there is no y A such that
x y . (It follows immediately that the subset of A for which is an equivalence relation is precisely the subset on
which f is dened.)
x0 x1 , x0 X x1 f (x0 ) Y g(x1 )
then f f means that f induces a well-dened function of the quotients X/ X Y / Y . Thus, the PER
captures both the idea of denedness on the quotients and of two functions inducing the same function on the
quotient.
4.3 References
[1] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5135/
[2] J. Lambek (1996). The Buttery and the Serpent. In Aldo Ursini, Paulo Agliano. Logic and Algebra. CRC Press. pp.
161180. ISBN 978-0-8247-9606-8.
D.S. Scott. Data types as lattices. SIAM Journ. Comput., 3:523-587, 1976.
Binary relation
Chapter 5
Symmetric relation
In mathematics and other areas, a binary relation R over a set X is symmetric if it holds for all a and b in X that a is
related to b if and only if b is related to a.
In mathematical notation, this is:
a, b X(aRb bRa)
5.1 Examples
5.1.1 In mathematics
25
26 CHAPTER 5. SYMMETRIC RELATION
is a homophone of
Antisymmetric relation
Commutative property
Symmetry in mathematics
Symmetry
Chapter 6
Tolerance relation
In mathematics, a tolerance relation is a relation that is reexive and symmetric. It does not need to be transitive.
28
6.2. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 29
6.2.2 Images
File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work based on: Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat, penubag
File:Bothodd.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Bothodd.png License: Public domain Contributors:
Own work Original artist: Fresheneesz (talk) (Uploads)
File:E-to-the-i-pi.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/E-to-the-i-pi.svg License: CC BY 2.5 Contribu-
tors: No machine-readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims). Original artist: No machine-readable author
provided. Dermeister assumed (based on copyright claims).
30 CHAPTER 6. TOLERANCE RELATION