Difference between revisions of "Notes:Quotient"
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 {{ | + | * 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 ( | + | 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.
- Then \frac{X}{\sim} denotes the "equivalence classes" of ~
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:
- The dashed arrow exists by function composition.
- 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}
- [(\pi\times\pi)(v,v')=(\pi\times\pi)(u,u')]\implies[\pi(+(v,v'))=\pi(+(u,u'))] then
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.