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.
elementary-set-theory definition binary-operations
add a comment |
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.
elementary-set-theory definition binary-operations
add a comment |
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.
elementary-set-theory definition binary-operations
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
elementary-set-theory definition binary-operations
edited 9 hours ago
asked Nov 20 at 15:29
bblohowiak
517
517
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 9 hours ago
Ethan Bolker
39.2k543102
39.2k543102
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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