Hubbry Logo
Equivalence classEquivalence classMain
Open search
Equivalence class
Community hub
Equivalence class
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Equivalence class
Equivalence class
from Wikipedia
Congruence is an example of an equivalence relation. The leftmost two triangles are congruent, while the third and fourth triangles are not congruent to any other triangle shown here. Thus, the first two triangles are in the same equivalence class, while the third and fourth triangles are each in their own equivalence class.

In mathematics, when the elements of some set have a notion of equivalence (formalized as an equivalence relation), then one may naturally split the set into equivalence classes. These equivalence classes are constructed so that elements and belong to the same equivalence class if, and only if, they are equivalent.

Formally, given a set and an equivalence relation on the equivalence class of an element in is denoted or, equivalently, to emphasize its equivalence relation , and is defined as the set of all elements in with which is -related. The definition of equivalence relations implies that the equivalence classes form a partition of meaning, that every element of the set belongs to exactly one equivalence class. The set of the equivalence classes is sometimes called the quotient set or the quotient space of by and is denoted by

When the set has some structure (such as a group operation or a topology) and the equivalence relation is compatible with this structure, the quotient set often inherits a similar structure from its parent set. Examples include quotient spaces in linear algebra, quotient spaces in topology, quotient groups, homogeneous spaces, quotient rings, quotient monoids, and quotient categories.

Definition and notation

[edit]

An equivalence relation on a set is a binary relation on satisfying the three properties:[1]

  • for all (reflexivity),
  • implies for all (symmetry),
  • if and then for all (transitivity).

The equivalence class of an element is defined as[2]

The word "class" in the term "equivalence class" may generally be considered as a synonym of "set", although some equivalence classes are not sets but proper classes. For example, "being isomorphic" is an equivalence relation on groups, and the equivalence classes, called isomorphism classes, are not sets.

The set of all equivalence classes in with respect to an equivalence relation is denoted as and is called modulo (or the quotient set of by ).[3] The surjective map from onto which maps each element to its equivalence class, is called the canonical surjection, or the canonical projection.

Every element of an equivalence class characterizes the class, and may be used to represent it. When such an element is chosen, it is called a representative of the class. The choice of a representative in each class defines an injection from to X. Since its composition with the canonical surjection is the identity of such an injection is called a section, when using the terminology of category theory.

Sometimes, there is a section that is more "natural" than the other ones. In this case, the representatives are called canonical representatives. For example, in modular arithmetic, for every integer m greater than 1, the congruence modulo m is an equivalence relation on the integers, for which two integers a and b are equivalent—in this case, one says congruent—if m divides this is denoted Each class contains a unique non-negative integer smaller than and these integers are the canonical representatives.

The use of representatives for representing classes allows avoiding considering explicitly classes as sets. In this case, the canonical surjection that maps an element to its class is replaced by the function that maps an element to the representative of its class. In the preceding example, this function is denoted and produces the remainder of the Euclidean division of a by m.

Properties

[edit]

For a set with an equivalence relation , every element of is a member of the equivalence class by reflexivity ( for all ). Every two equivalence classes and are either equal if , or disjoint otherwise. Therefore, the set of all equivalence classes of forms a partition of : every element of belongs to one and only one equivalence class.[4]

Conversely, for a set , every partition comes from an equivalence relation in this way, and different relations give different partitions. Thus if and only if and belong to the same set of the partition.[5]

It follows from the properties in the previous section that if is an equivalence relation on a set and and are two elements of the following statements are equivalent:

  • ,
  • , and

Examples

[edit]
  • Let be the set of all rectangles in a plane, and the equivalence relation "has the same area as", then for each positive real number there will be an equivalence class of all the rectangles that have area [6]
  • Consider the modulo 2 equivalence relation on the set of integers, such that if and only if their difference is an even number. This relation gives rise to exactly two equivalence classes: one class consists of all even numbers, and the other class consists of all odd numbers. Using square brackets around one member of the class to denote an equivalence class under this relation, and all represent the same element of [2]
  • Let be the set of ordered pairs of integers with non-zero and define an equivalence relation on such that if and only if then the equivalence class of the pair can be identified with the rational number and this equivalence relation and its equivalence classes can be used to give a formal definition of the set of rational numbers.[7] The same construction can be generalized to the field of fractions of any integral domain.
  • If consists of all the lines in, say, the Euclidean plane, and means that and are parallel lines, then the set of lines that are parallel to each other form an equivalence class, as long as a line is considered parallel to itself. In this situation, each equivalence class determines a point at infinity.

Graphical representation

[edit]
Graph of an example equivalence with 7 classes

An undirected graph may be associated to any symmetric relation on a set where the vertices are the elements of and two vertices and are joined if and only if Among these graphs are the graphs of equivalence relations. These graphs, called cluster graphs, are characterized as the graphs such that the connected components are cliques.[2]

Invariants

[edit]

If is an equivalence relation on and is a property of elements of such that whenever is true if is true, then the property is said to be an invariant of or well-defined under the relation

A frequent particular case occurs when is a function from to another set ; if whenever then is said to be class invariant under or simply invariant under This occurs, for example, in the character theory of finite groups. Some authors use "compatible with " or just "respects " instead of "invariant under ".

Any function is class invariant under according to which if and only if The equivalence class of is the set of all elements in which get mapped to that is, the class is the inverse image of This equivalence relation is known as the kernel of

More generally, a function may map equivalent arguments (under an equivalence relation on ) to equivalent values (under an equivalence relation on ). Such a function is a morphism of sets equipped with an equivalence relation.

Quotient space in topology

[edit]

In topology, a quotient space is a topological space formed on the set of equivalence classes of an equivalence relation on a topological space, using the original space's topology to create the topology on the set of equivalence classes.

In abstract algebra, congruence relations on the underlying set of an algebra allow the algebra to induce an algebra on the equivalence classes of the relation, called a quotient algebra. In linear algebra, a quotient space is a vector space formed by taking a quotient group, where the quotient homomorphism is a linear map. By extension, in abstract algebra, the term quotient space may be used for quotient modules, quotient rings, quotient groups, or any quotient algebra. However, the use of the term for the more general cases can as often be by analogy with the orbits of a group action.

The orbits of a group action on a set may be called the quotient space of the action on the set, particularly when the orbits of the group action are the right cosets of a subgroup of a group, which arise from the action of the subgroup on the group by left translations, or respectively the left cosets as orbits under right translation.

A normal subgroup of a topological group, acting on the group by translation action, is a quotient space in the senses of topology, abstract algebra, and group actions simultaneously.

Although the term can be used for any equivalence relation's set of equivalence classes, possibly with further structure, the intent of using the term is generally to compare that type of equivalence relation on a set either to an equivalence relation that induces some structure on the set of equivalence classes from a structure of the same kind on or to the orbits of a group action. Both the sense of a structure preserved by an equivalence relation, and the study of invariants under group actions, lead to the definition of invariants of equivalence relations given above.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In , an equivalence class is a of a given set consisting of all elements that are equivalent to a particular element under an , which is a on the set that satisfies the properties of reflexivity, , and transitivity. For an equivalence relation \sim on a set XX and an element xXx \in X, the equivalence class of xx, denoted _\sim, is defined as ={yXyx}_\sim = \{ y \in X \mid y \sim x \}. Equivalence classes possess key properties that make them fundamental in and : two equivalence classes are either identical or disjoint, and the collection of all distinct equivalence classes forms a partition of the original set XX, meaning every element of XX belongs to exactly one class. This partitioning arises directly from the reflexive, symmetric, and transitive nature of the relation, ensuring no overlaps and complete coverage. A exists between the set of all equivalence relations on XX and the set of all pairwise disjoint partitions of XX, highlighting their structural equivalence. Common examples include congruence modulo an integer nn on the integers Z\mathbb{Z}, where n={mZmk(modn)}_n = \{ m \in \mathbb{Z} \mid m \equiv k \pmod{n} \} for 0k<n0 \leq k < n, partitioning Z\mathbb{Z} into nn classes based on remainders. Another is parity on Z\mathbb{Z}, dividing integers into even and odd classes. These classes underpin concepts like and quotient sets, enabling constructions such as the integers modulo nn, denoted Z/nZ\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}.

Definition and Basic Concepts

Formal Definition

In mathematics, given a set XX and an equivalence relation \sim on XX, the equivalence class of an element xXx \in X, denoted $$, is defined as the subset ={yXyx} = \{ y \in X \mid y \sim x \}, comprising all elements of XX that are related to xx under \sim. The equivalence classes of all elements in XX form a partition of XX: these subsets are pairwise disjoint, and their union equals XX, ensuring every element belongs to exactly one such class. This concept was formalized in the late amid the development of , with early contributions including Richard Dedekind's use of equivalence in (1871).

Equivalence Relation

An is a fundamental concept in that generalizes the intuitive notions of equality and congruence between objects, allowing for the identification of elements that share certain properties while distinguishing others. This generalization enables the study of structures where "sameness" is defined relative to specific criteria, such as congruence modulo an , rather than strict identity. Typically denoted by the \sim or \equiv, an equivalence relation on a set AA is a A×A\sim \subseteq A \times A that satisfies three key axioms: reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. These axioms mirror the properties of equality but apply to broader contexts.
  • Reflexivity: For every element aAa \in A, aaa \sim a. This ensures that every element is related to itself.
  • Symmetry: For all a,bAa, b \in A, if aba \sim b, then bab \sim a. This guarantees that the relation is bidirectional.
  • Transitivity: For all a,b,cAa, b, c \in A, if aba \sim b and bcb \sim c, then aca \sim c. This allows the relation to chain across multiple elements.
These properties collectively ensure that the relation behaves like an extended form of equality on the set.

Properties

Fundamental Properties

Equivalence classes possess several intrinsic properties that stem directly from the definition of an equivalence relation. For any set XX equipped with an equivalence relation \sim, the equivalence class of an element xXx \in X, denoted ={yXyx} = \{ y \in X \mid y \sim x \}, satisfies the property that every element belongs to its own class, ensuring xx \in . This reflexivity guarantees that no equivalence class is empty. Furthermore, distinct equivalence classes are disjoint: if \neq, then = \cap = \emptyset. This disjointness arises because if there exists some zz \in \cap , then zxz \sim x and zyz \sim y, implying xyx \sim y by transitivity and symmetry, so ==. A key characterizing feature is the equality of classes: == if and only if xyx \sim y. This equivalence means that two elements share the same class precisely when they are related under \sim, which directly ties the structure of the classes to the relation itself. Consequently, every element of XX belongs to exactly one equivalence class, as the classes cover XX without overlap. This exhaustiveness ensures a complete partitioning of the set into these classes. Regarding , equivalence classes may be finite or infinite, and distinct classes within the same partition can have different sizes depending on the relation and the set. No universal bound exists on class sizes, allowing for significant variation across the collection of classes.

Connection to Partitions

Equivalence relations on a set XX and partitions of XX are in one-to-one correspondence, meaning every induces a unique partition of XX into its equivalence classes, and conversely, every partition of XX determines a unique by relating elements within the same partition block. Formally, if \sim is an equivalence relation on a nonempty set XX, then the set of equivalence classes X/={xX}X / \sim = \{ \mid x \in X \} forms a partition of XX, where the equivalence classes are pairwise disjoint and their union equals XX. To see this, the union of all equivalence classes covers XX because reflexivity ensures every xXx \in X belongs to its own class .Fordisjointness,supposetwoclasses. For disjointness, suppose two classes and $$ have nonempty intersection, so there exists cc \in \cap ; then transitivity and imply ==, establishing that distinct classes are disjoint. Conversely, given a partition Π={PiiI}\Pi = \{ P_i \mid i \in I \} of XX, define xyx \sim y if xx and yy belong to the same PiP_i; this relation is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, yielding an whose classes are precisely the blocks of Π\Pi.

Examples

Everyday Examples

Equivalence classes appear in everyday scenarios where objects or entities are grouped based on shared properties that satisfy reflexive, symmetric, and transitive relations. One common example is the parity of integers, where numbers are classified as even or odd. All even numbers—such as 2, 4, 6, and so on—form one equivalence class because they leave a remainder of 0 when divided by 2, while all odd numbers—such as 1, 3, 5—form another class with a of 1. This grouping is intuitive in daily tasks like checking divisibility or balancing accounts, where the specific value within the class is less important than the shared parity property. Another relatable instance involves color perception for people with color blindness, where certain shades that differ to those with typical vision appear identical, creating equivalence classes of indistinguishable colors. For example, in red-green (deuteranopia or protanopia), hues like certain reds and greens blend together, forming a class that might confuse viewers when interpreting visual aids such as traffic lights, subway maps, or product labels. Designers account for these classes by selecting palettes where no two colors fall into the same equivalence group for affected individuals, ensuring clarity in navigation or data visualization. In postal systems, ZIP codes provide a practical by grouping addresses that share the same code for delivery efficiency. Each ZIP code defines an encompassing all locations—from individual homes to businesses—within its geographic area, such as all addresses under 90210 in . This partitioning simplifies mail routing, as items destined for the same class are handled equivalently regardless of exact street details, illustrating how equivalence classes streamline real-world .

Mathematical Examples

One prominent example of equivalence classes arises in the study of congruence modulo nn on the set of integers Z\mathbb{Z}, where nn is a positive integer. The relation defined by aba \sim b if nn divides aba - b (denoted ab(modn)a \equiv b \pmod{n}) is an equivalence relation, partitioning Z\mathbb{Z} into nn distinct equivalence classes. Each class n={kZka(modn)}_n = \{ k \in \mathbb{Z} \mid k \equiv a \pmod{n} \} consists of all integers congruent to aa modulo nn, forming the residue system modulo nn. For instance, with n=3n=3, the classes are {{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=0&&&citation_type=wikipedia}}_3 = \{\ldots, -6, -3, 0, 3, 6, \ldots\}, {{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=1&&&citation_type=wikipedia}}_3 = \{\ldots, -5, -2, 1, 4, 7, \ldots\}, and {{grok:render&&&type=render_inline_citation&&&citation_id=2&&&citation_type=wikipedia}}_3 = \{\ldots, -4, -1, 2, 5, 8, \ldots\}. Another fundamental construction uses equivalence classes to define the rational numbers Q\mathbb{Q} from pairs of integers. Consider the set Z×(Z{0})\mathbb{Z} \times (\mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}) of ordered pairs (a,b)(a, b) with b0b \neq 0, equipped with the relation (a,b)(c,d)(a, b) \sim (c, d) if ad=bcad = bc. This relation is an , and each equivalence class [(a,b)]={(c,d)Z×(Z{0})ad=bc}[(a, b)] = \{ (c, d) \in \mathbb{Z} \times (\mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}) \mid ad = bc \} represents a , intuitively a/ba/b in lowest terms. For example, the class [(1,2)][(1, 2)] includes pairs like (2,4)(2, 4), (3,6)(3, 6), and (1,2)(-1, -2), all denoting 1/21/2. The set of all such classes, with operations defined componentwise and verified to be well-defined, forms the field Q\mathbb{Q}. In , equivalence classes emerge from the connectivity relation on the vertices of an undirected graph G=(V,E)G = (V, E). The relation uvu \sim v if there exists a path between uu and vv in GG is an on VV, with each equivalence class $$ comprising all vertices reachable from uu, known as a connected component. For a graph with three components—a single vertex, a path of two edges, and an isolated edge—the classes are {[v1]}\{[v_1]\}, {[v2,v3,v4]}\{[v_2, v_3, v_4]\}, and {[v5,v6]}\{[v_5, v_6]\}, respectively, partitioning VV into disjoint subsets where intra-class connectivity holds but inter-class paths do not. These classes exhibit the disjointness inherent to equivalence relations.

Representations

Graphical Representations

Equivalence classes, as disjoint subsets forming a partition of the underlying set, are commonly visualized using diagrams that emphasize their and complete coverage. For finite sets, a standard graphical method employs Venn-like diagrams consisting of disjoint circles or bounded regions, each enclosing the elements of a single equivalence class. This representation highlights the partition property by showing non-overlapping areas whose union is the entire set, aiding in intuitive understanding of how the relation groups elements without overlap. In illustrations for specific examples, such as congruence modulo nn on the integers, partition bars or color-coded regions on a number line effectively depict the repeating structure of classes. For instance, the equivalence classes modulo 3 can be visualized on a number line with periodic groupings based on remainders 0, 1, and 2. However, graphical representations face significant limitations when dealing with infinite equivalence classes, as it is impossible to exhaustively draw or color unbounded sets in a finite . In such cases, , such as ={xxa} = \{ x \mid x \sim a \}, serves as a complementary tool to denote the classes abstractly, preserving precision where visuals fall short.

Invariants

In , an invariant for an \sim on a set SS is a function f:SWf: S \to W, where WW is another set, such that f(a)=f(b)f(a) = f(b) whenever aba \sim b; that is, ff takes the same value on every element of an equivalence class. This property ensures that ff remains unchanged under the equivalence, providing a way to assign a single representative value to each class. Invariants are particularly useful for distinguishing between different equivalence classes without examining every element individually. A classic example arises in the equivalence relation of congruence modulo nn on the integers Z\mathbb{Z}, where two integers aa and bb satisfy aba \sim b if nn divides aba - b. The function f(a)=amodnf(a) = a \mod n, which returns the remainder when aa is divided by nn (in the range 00 to n1n-1), serves as an invariant, as all elements in the class $$ share the remainder kk. Similarly, in linear algebra, similarity of square matrices over a field defines an equivalence relation, and the trace—the sum of the diagonal elements—is an invariant: if B=P1APB = P^{-1}AP for an PP, then trace(A)=trace(B)\operatorname{trace}(A) = \operatorname{trace}(B). This follows from the cyclic property of the trace, trace(XY)=trace(YX)\operatorname{trace}(XY) = \operatorname{trace}(YX), applied iteratively to the similarity transformation. Invariants play a key role in classifying objects up to equivalence by providing measurable properties that define class membership. In , congruence—defined as the existence of an mapping one figure to another—forms an , and quantities like side lengths of triangles act as invariants: two triangles are congruent if and only if their corresponding side lengths match. These invariants enable efficient determination of equivalence without physical manipulation, as seen in criteria such as SSS (side-side-side), where equal side lengths guarantee congruence. Such applications extend to broader problems, where a complete set of invariants fully separates the classes.

Applications

Quotient Sets

In , given a set XX and an \sim on XX, the set, denoted X/X / \sim, is defined as the set of all equivalence classes of \sim, that is, X/={xX}X / \sim = \{ \mid x \in X \}, where $$ denotes the equivalence class of xx under \sim. This construction partitions XX into disjoint subsets, each corresponding to an element of X/X / \sim. The canonical projection map π:XX/\pi: X \to X / \sim is the defined by π(x)=\pi(x) = for all xXx \in X, which identifies each element of XX with its equivalence class. This map establishes a between X/X / \sim and the partition of XX induced by \sim. The of the quotient set X/|X / \sim| equals the number of distinct equivalence classes, which is generally smaller than or equal to X|X|, with equality holding \sim is the equality relation on XX. If \sim is a —meaning it is compatible with any algebraic operations on XX—then these operations induce well-defined operations on X/X / \sim. For instance, an nn-ary operation f:XnXf: X^n \to X induces an operation on X/X / \sim by [x1],,[xn][f(x1,,xn)][x_1], \dots, [x_n] \mapsto [f(x_1, \dots, x_n)], preserving the structure of the original set. An example occurs with on the integers Z\mathbb{Z}, where the equivalence relation of nn induces on the Z/nZ\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}, forming the of order nn.

Topological Quotient Spaces

In , equivalence classes extend the discrete notion of partitioning sets to continuous spaces, allowing the construction of spaces that identify equivalent points while preserving topological structure. Given a (X,τ)(X, \tau) and an \sim on XX, the space X/X / \sim consists of the set of equivalence classes endowed with the quotient . The quotient map π:XX/\pi: X \to X / \sim, which sends each point to its equivalence class, induces this topology: a UX/U \subseteq X / \sim is open if and only if π1(U)\pi^{-1}(U) is open in XX. This definition ensures that the quotient topology is the finest topology on X/X / \sim making π\pi continuous, thereby capturing the "gluing" of equivalent points in a manner compatible with the original topology on XX. For the quotient space to exhibit well-behaved properties, such as the quotient map being open or closed under certain conditions, open sets in XX are often required to be saturated with respect to \sim. A set CXC \subseteq X is saturated if it is a union of equivalence classes, meaning that if CC intersects an equivalence class, it contains the entire class; this condition aligns open sets in the quotient with unions of classes, facilitating continuity and other topological invariants. A classic example is the circle S1S^1, obtained as the quotient of the closed interval [0,1][0, 1] under the equivalence relation identifying the endpoints 010 \sim 1, with all other points forming singleton classes. The projection π:[0,1]S1\pi: [0, 1] \to S^1 given by π(t)=e2πit\pi(t) = e^{2\pi i t} equips the quotient with the standard topology on the circle, where open sets correspond to preimages that are open intervals or unions thereof in [0,1][0, 1]. Another prominent example is the real projective plane RP2\mathbb{RP}^2, formed as the quotient of the 2-sphere S2S^2 by identifying antipodal points via xxx \sim -x for xS2x \in S^2. This identification yields a nonorientable surface, with the quotient topology ensuring that the projection π:S2RP2\pi: S^2 \to \mathbb{RP}^2 is a covering map of degree 2, and open sets in RP2\mathbb{RP}^2 arise as images of saturated open sets on the sphere.

Algebraic Applications

In , equivalence classes play a central role in the construction of structures, particularly in the study of groups and rings. For groups, a NN of a group GG defines an on GG where two elements g1,g2Gg_1, g_2 \in G are equivalent if g11g2Ng_1^{-1}g_2 \in N. The equivalence classes under this relation are the left (or right, since NN is normal) cosets of NN in GG, denoted gNgN for gGg \in G. These cosets form the G/NG/N, where the group operation is induced by the operation in GG: (g1N)(g2N)=(g1g2)N(g_1 N)(g_2 N) = (g_1 g_2) N. This structure preserves the algebraic properties of GG modulo NN, allowing the analysis of GG through its "factor" group. Similarly, in , an ideal II of a ring RR induces an where aba \sim b if abIa - b \in I. The equivalence classes are the cosets a+Ia + I, and they form the R/IR/I with and defined componentwise: (a+I)+(b+I)=(a+b)+I(a + I) + (b + I) = (a + b) + I and (a+I)(b+I)=(ab)+I(a + I)(b + I) = (ab) + I. For R/IR/I to be a well-defined ring, II must absorb multiplication from RR, ensuring the operations are independent of coset representatives. This construction is fundamental for studying ring homomorphisms and modular arithmetic in algebraic contexts. The first isomorphism theorem for groups connects these equivalence classes to homomorphisms: if ϕ:GH\phi: G \to H is a , the kernel ker(ϕ)={gGϕ(g)=eH}\ker(\phi) = \{g \in G \mid \phi(g) = e_H\} is a of GG, and the equivalence classes are the cosets gker(ϕ)g \ker(\phi). The theorem states that G/ker(ϕ)G / \ker(\phi) is isomorphic to the image ϕ(G)\phi(G), providing a way to identify quotient groups with subgroups of the codomain via the induced map ϕ:G/ker(ϕ)ϕ(G)\overline{\phi}: G / \ker(\phi) \to \phi(G) given by ϕ(gker(ϕ))=ϕ(g)\overline{\phi}(g \ker(\phi)) = \phi(g). This result generalizes to rings, linking kernels as ideals to quotient rings and images. These concepts emerged in the early as part of the development of modern , with Emmy Noether's work on ideals, modules, and chain conditions in the providing a unified framework for constructions in associative structures.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.