Equivalence relation generated by a relation: concrete characterization












0














Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




  • $x_1 = x$,


  • $x_n = y$,


  • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations







share|cite|improve this question



























    0














    Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



    Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




    For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




    • $x_1 = x$,


    • $x_n = y$,


    • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





    The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






    elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations







    share|cite|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0







      Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



      Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




      For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




      • $x_1 = x$,


      • $x_n = y$,


      • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





      The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






      elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations







      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



      Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




      For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




      • $x_1 = x$,


      • $x_n = y$,


      • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





      The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






      elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations




      elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 27 '18 at 15:22









      Jxt921

      980618




      980618






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2





          +150










          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 '18 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 17:53











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015900%2fequivalence-relation-generated-by-a-relation-concrete-characterization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2





          +150










          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 '18 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 17:53
















          2





          +150










          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 '18 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 17:53














          2





          +150







          2





          +150



          2




          +150





          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer













          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 30 '18 at 7:21









          Alex Ravsky

          39.2k32180




          39.2k32180












          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 '18 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 17:53


















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 '18 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 '18 at 17:53
















          But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 '18 at 8:46




          But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 '18 at 8:46




          1




          1




          This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
          – Alex Ravsky
          Nov 30 '18 at 14:47






          This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
          – Alex Ravsky
          Nov 30 '18 at 14:47














          You are right, I'm sorry.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 '18 at 17:53




          You are right, I'm sorry.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 '18 at 17:53


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015900%2fequivalence-relation-generated-by-a-relation-concrete-characterization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          Ellipse (mathématiques)

          Image
          Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
          Read more

          Quarter-circle Tiles

          Image
          up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
          Read more

          Mont Emei

          Image
          Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
          Read more