Bounds of defining operations for equivalence classes











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












When operations for number systems are defined in terms of representatives of equivalence classes, can those operations meet the criteria for being well defined if the definition includes specific values of the number system from which a system is constructed?



As an example, if I want to define addition for a number system constructed from nonnegative reals:
(a,b) + (c,d) = [((a+c)/2), ((b+d)/3)]


Is it permissible to include digits that already belong to the reals? The operation of division? What if I wanted to use a signum function?



I recognize that there may be prohibitions against such things when it comes to operation definitions; if they are off-limits, I would appreciate direction to resources or explanations that indicate the basis for such prohibitions.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    When operations for number systems are defined in terms of representatives of equivalence classes, can those operations meet the criteria for being well defined if the definition includes specific values of the number system from which a system is constructed?



    As an example, if I want to define addition for a number system constructed from nonnegative reals:
    (a,b) + (c,d) = [((a+c)/2), ((b+d)/3)]


    Is it permissible to include digits that already belong to the reals? The operation of division? What if I wanted to use a signum function?



    I recognize that there may be prohibitions against such things when it comes to operation definitions; if they are off-limits, I would appreciate direction to resources or explanations that indicate the basis for such prohibitions.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      When operations for number systems are defined in terms of representatives of equivalence classes, can those operations meet the criteria for being well defined if the definition includes specific values of the number system from which a system is constructed?



      As an example, if I want to define addition for a number system constructed from nonnegative reals:
      (a,b) + (c,d) = [((a+c)/2), ((b+d)/3)]


      Is it permissible to include digits that already belong to the reals? The operation of division? What if I wanted to use a signum function?



      I recognize that there may be prohibitions against such things when it comes to operation definitions; if they are off-limits, I would appreciate direction to resources or explanations that indicate the basis for such prohibitions.










      share|cite|improve this question















      When operations for number systems are defined in terms of representatives of equivalence classes, can those operations meet the criteria for being well defined if the definition includes specific values of the number system from which a system is constructed?



      As an example, if I want to define addition for a number system constructed from nonnegative reals:
      (a,b) + (c,d) = [((a+c)/2), ((b+d)/3)]


      Is it permissible to include digits that already belong to the reals? The operation of division? What if I wanted to use a signum function?



      I recognize that there may be prohibitions against such things when it comes to operation definitions; if they are off-limits, I would appreciate direction to resources or explanations that indicate the basis for such prohibitions.







      elementary-set-theory definition binary-operations






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 9 hours ago

























      asked Nov 20 at 15:29









      bblohowiak

      517




      517






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer what I think you are asking.



          The operation you have defined that maps two ordered pairs of real numbers (not necessarily positive) to another pair of real numbers is well defined. That fact that it mentions $2$ and $3$ is not a problem.



          I see nothing in your example that addresses representatives of equivalence classes.



          I hope you chose that just as an example. It's probably not particularly nice, or useful.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006458%2fbounds-of-defining-operations-for-equivalence-classes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote













            I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer what I think you are asking.



            The operation you have defined that maps two ordered pairs of real numbers (not necessarily positive) to another pair of real numbers is well defined. That fact that it mentions $2$ and $3$ is not a problem.



            I see nothing in your example that addresses representatives of equivalence classes.



            I hope you chose that just as an example. It's probably not particularly nice, or useful.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              1
              down vote













              I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer what I think you are asking.



              The operation you have defined that maps two ordered pairs of real numbers (not necessarily positive) to another pair of real numbers is well defined. That fact that it mentions $2$ and $3$ is not a problem.



              I see nothing in your example that addresses representatives of equivalence classes.



              I hope you chose that just as an example. It's probably not particularly nice, or useful.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                1
                down vote










                up vote
                1
                down vote









                I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer what I think you are asking.



                The operation you have defined that maps two ordered pairs of real numbers (not necessarily positive) to another pair of real numbers is well defined. That fact that it mentions $2$ and $3$ is not a problem.



                I see nothing in your example that addresses representatives of equivalence classes.



                I hope you chose that just as an example. It's probably not particularly nice, or useful.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer what I think you are asking.



                The operation you have defined that maps two ordered pairs of real numbers (not necessarily positive) to another pair of real numbers is well defined. That fact that it mentions $2$ and $3$ is not a problem.



                I see nothing in your example that addresses representatives of equivalence classes.



                I hope you chose that just as an example. It's probably not particularly nice, or useful.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 9 hours ago









                Ethan Bolker

                39.2k543102




                39.2k543102






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006458%2fbounds-of-defining-operations-for-equivalence-classes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Wiesbaden

                    Marschland

                    Dieringhausen