Invariant of an equivalence relation
From Maths
Revision as of 18:47, 9 November 2016 by Alec (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Stub page|grade=A|msg=Find more references and flesh out}} ==Definition== Let {{M|S}} be a set and let {{M|\sim\subseteq S\times S}} be an equivalence relation on {{...")
Stub grade: A
This page is a stub
This page is a stub, so it contains little or minimal information and is on a to-do list for being expanded.The message provided is:
Find more references and flesh out
Contents
[hide]Definition
Let S be a set and let ∼⊆S×S be an equivalence relation on S, let W[Note 1] be any set and let f:S→W be any function from S to W. Then[1]:
- We say "f is an invariant of ∼" if[Note 2]:
- ∀a,b∈S[a∼b⟹f(a)=f(b)] - in other words, f is constant on the equivalence classes of ∼.
Complete invariant
With the setup of S, W, ∼ and f:S→W as above define a "complete invariant" as follows[1]:
- "f is a complete invariant of ∼" if[Note 2]:
- ∀a,b∈S[a∼b⟺f(a)=f(b)] - in other words, f is constant on and distinct on the equivalence classes of ∼.
Terminology
It's hard to be formal in English, however we may say any of the following:
- "f is an invariant of ∼"[1]
- "∼ is invariant under f"
- This makes sense as we're saying the a∼b property holds (doesn't vary) "under" (think "image of A under f"-like terminology) f, that f(a)=f(b)
Examples and instances
TODO: Create a category and start collecting
See also
- Complete system of invariants - a finite set of complete invariants really.
- Set of canonical forms - a subset of S, C∈P(S), such that there exists a unique c∈C such that c∼s
- An equivalent condition to the axiom of choice is that every partition has a set of representatives that's closely related. Be warned
Notes
- Jump up ↑ Think of W as Whatever - as usual (except in Linear Algebra where W is quite often used for vector spaces
- ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 See "definitions and iff"
References
Grade: A
This page requires references, it is on a to-do list for being expanded with them.
Please note that this does not mean the content is unreliable, it just means that the author of the page doesn't have a book to hand, or remember the book to find it, which would have been a suitable reference.
The message provided is:
The message provided is:
More on the fundamentals of mathematics would be good