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 {{...")

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
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

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:SW be any function from S to W. Then[1]:

  • We say "f is an invariant of " if[Note 2]:

Complete invariant

With the setup of S, W, and f:SW as above define a "complete invariant" as follows[1]:

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 ab 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

Notes

  1. Jump up Think of W as Whatever - as usual (except in Linear Algebra where W is quite often used for vector spaces
  2. Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 See "definitions and iff"

References

  1. Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 1.2 Advanced Linear Algebra - Steven Roman
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:
More on the fundamentals of mathematics would be good