E 22.2
a) No. Given that the sizes of the equivalence classes for , and are different, none of these elements can be related by .
b) There are four equivalence. Since 9/10 elements are represented by [a], [b], [c], there must be one missing, call it . So the final equivalence class is [d].
Consider any . Define the point . Clearly, . We know that since
Therefore, each equivalence class under has at least one representative in .
Next, we aim to show that this representative is unique. Assume there exist two distinct points and in such that and . Then, we have
Since , we must have , contradicting the assumption that and are distinct. Hence, each equivalence class under has at most one representative in .
Therefore, the set is a transversal of .
E 22.4
Let W be the set of all words in the English language. Define a relation on W by if and have the same first letter.
a) Reflexive.
Let . Then starts with the same letter as . Thus is reflexive.
Symmetric.
Let . Assume . Then start with the same letter. Thus and start with the same letter. So is symmetric.
Transitive
Let . Assume and . Then start with the same letter and start with the same letter. Therefore start with the same letter. So is transitive.
Since is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, is an equivalence relation.
b)
"cannot"
"continue"
"creating"
"crafty"
"calculations"
"cookie"
c) 26, one for each letter in the alphabet.
d)
E 22.5
Let be a set with elements. Define a relation ∼ on by if , for any .
a) Reflexive. Let . Then . So is reflexive.
Symmetric. Let . Assume , so . Then So is symmetric.
Transitive. Let . Assume and . Then and . So . So is transitive.
Since is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, is an equivalence relation.
b) The equivalence classes of consist of all elements (sets) in that have the same length. For example, [2] is the set containing all combinations (sets) of any two elements in .
c) There are equivalence classes.
d) A transversal of would be the set containing exactly one element from each equivalence class. So it would include exactly one set with length 1, one set with length 2, ..., and one set with length .
e) Let [a] be an equivalence class of . Then by property of power sets, there are elements in [a].
E 22.6
Let . For each , define
={ : is the least element of }
Let
a) Proof.
We aim to show:
No set in is empty.
The sets in are disjoint.
The union of the sets in is .
No set in is empty: is clearly non-empty as it contains the empty set. For , if exists in then the set belongs to because is the least element of . Therefore, is non-empty for each .
The sets in are disjoint:
Assume there are sets and such that and their intersection is non-empty. Let be an element in this intersection. By definition of and , and would both be the least elements of , which is a contradiction. Thus, and cannot have any common elements and are therefore disjoint. is also disjoint with any .
The union of the sets in is :
Let be an element in . If , then belongs to . If , then has a least element . Therefore, belongs to . Thus, every set in belongs to some set in , which means the union of the sets in is .
Thus is a partition of .
b) There are 11, one for each element in A, plus the empty set.
c)
d) [{8,9,10}]={{8},{8,9},{8,10},{8,9,10}}
e)
E 22.7
Assume that . By symmetry we have . Then by definition of equivalence classes (21.11), and . Thus the intersection of and contains at minimum and and therefore is nonempty.
Assume that and intersect nontrivially. Let be some element such that and . Thus and . By the transitive property, . This implies that every element in is related to , or .
By a similar argument, since, by symmetry we have , every element in is related to , and hence, every element in belongs to . This means .
Putting these two statements together, we get .
Assume that .
Certainly! Let's prove that (3 \implies 1):
This means every element in is also in and vice-versa. We know by definition of an equivalence class. Since , we also have .
Now, by definition of equivalence classes, if , then .
E 22.8 Proof.
Assume that for all . We aim to prove that for any , we have iff
Assume for some . By the definition of equivalence classes, this means . Then . By the definition of equivalence under , this means . Thus, we have shown that if , then .
Assume for some . By the definition of equivalence classes, this means . Then . By the definition of equivalence under , this means . Thus, we have shown that if , then .
Since we have shown both directions, we conclude that if and only if for all . Therefore, the two equivalence relations and are the same.
Hence, if two equivalence classes are the same, then the relations are the same.