Difference between revisions of "Notes:Quotient"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
m (As a diagram)
m (As a diagram: another typo)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 26: Line 26:
 
* We can say {{M|A\odot B}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X}} and {{M|B\subseteq X}}) if {{M|a\odot b\sim a'\odot b'}}
 
* We can say {{M|A\odot B}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X}} and {{M|B\subseteq X}}) if {{M|a\odot b\sim a'\odot b'}}
 
As then
 
As then
* We can define {{M|\pi(A)}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X }}) properly if {{M|\forall x\in A\forall y\in A[\pi(x)=\pi(y)] }}
+
* We can define {{M|\pi(A)}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X }}) properly if {{MM|1=\forall x\in A\forall y\in A[\pi(x)=\pi(y)] }}
  
 
This all seems very contrived
 
This all seems very contrived
  
 
===As a diagram===
 
===As a diagram===
I seem to be asking when a map (dashed line) is induced such that the following diagram commutes:
+
I seem to be asking when a map (dotted line) is induced such that the following diagram commutes:
 
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
 
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
 
|-
 
|-

Latest revision as of 09:38, 24 November 2015

Terminology

Let X be a set and let \sim be an equivalence relation on the elements of X.

This is best thought of as a map:

  • \pi:X\rightarrow\frac{X}{\sim} by \pi:x\mapsto [x] where recall:
    • [a]=\{x\in X\vert x\sim a\}, the notation [a] makes sense, as by the reflexive property of \sim we have a\in[a]

Quotient structure

Suppose that \odot:X\times X\rightarrow X is any map, and writing x\odot y:=\odot(x,y) when does \odot induce an 'equivalent' mapping on \frac{X}{\sim} ?

  • This is a mapping: \odot:\frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim}\rightarrow\frac{X}{\sim} where [x]\odot[y]=[x\odot y]
    • should such an operation be 'well defined' (which means it doesn't matter what representatives we pick of [x] and [y] in the computation)

Alternatively

We have no concept of \odot on \frac{X}{\sim} , but we do on X. The idea is that:

  • Given a [x] and a [y] we go back
  • To an x and a y representing those classes.
  • Compute x\odot y
  • Then go forward again to [x\odot y]

In functional terms we may say:

  • \odot:\frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim}\rightarrow\frac{X}{\sim} given by:
    \odot([x],[y])\mapsto\pi(\underbrace{\pi^{-1}([x])\odot\pi^{-1}([y])}_{\text{if }\odot\text{ makes sense} })=\Big[\pi^{-1}([x])\odot\pi^{-1}([y])\Big]

Here \pi^{-1}([x]) is a subset of X containing exactly those things which are equivalent to x (as these things all map to [x]).

  • We can say A\odot B (for A\subseteq X and B\subseteq X) if a\odot b\sim a'\odot b'

As then

  • We can define \pi(A) (for A\subseteq X ) properly if \forall x\in A\forall y\in A[\pi(x)=\pi(y)]

This all seems very contrived

As a diagram

I seem to be asking when a map (dotted line) is induced such that the following diagram commutes:

\begin{xy}\xymatrix{X\times X \ar@{->}[r]^-\odot \ar@{->}[d]_-{\pi\times\pi} \ar@{-->}[dr]^{\pi\circ\odot} & X \ar@{->}[d]^-{\pi} \\ \frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim} \ar@{.>}[r]_-{\odot} & \frac{X}{\sim} }\end{xy}

Diagram

It is quite simple really:

  1. The dashed arrow exists by function composition.
  2. Using the Factor (function) idea, if we have (for (v,v')\in V\times V and (u,u')\in V\times V - from wanting the diagram to commute):
    • [(\pi\times\pi)(v,v')=(\pi\times\pi)(u,u')]\implies[\pi(+(v,v'))=\pi(+(u,u'))] then
      • there exists a unique function, \odot:\frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim}\rightarrow\frac{X}{\sim} given by: \odot:=(\pi\circ+)\circ(\pi\times\pi)^{-1}

Note that while technically these are not functions (as they'd have to be bijective in this case) as FOR ANY x=(\pi\times\pi)^{-1}(a,b) we have \odot(x) being the same, it doesn't matter what element of (\pi\times\pi)^{-1} we take.