Equivalence relation generated by a relation: concrete characterization











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




  • $x_1 = x$,


  • $x_n = y$,


  • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



    Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




    For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




    • $x_1 = x$,


    • $x_n = y$,


    • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





    The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






    elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



      Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




      For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




      • $x_1 = x$,


      • $x_n = y$,


      • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





      The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






      elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations







      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $R$ be a relation on a set $X$. The equivalence relation $sim_R$ generated by $R$ is defined as $bigcap A$ for $A$ being the set of all equivalence relations containing $R$ ($A$ is not empty as $Xtimes X in A$).



      Different sources claim that it's possible to give a concrete definition of two elements $x$ and $y$ being in relation $sim_R$ to each other:




      For any $x,y in X, x sim_R y$ if and only if there is a $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that




      • $x_1 = x$,


      • $x_n = y$,


      • for any $1 leq k < n$ we have either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$.





      The "only if" part of the proof is carefully explained in this answer. However, I can't understand why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.






      elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations




      elementary-set-theory equivalence-relations






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 27 at 15:22









      Jxt921

      938618




      938618






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted
          +150











          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 17:53











          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',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          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%2f3015900%2fequivalence-relation-generated-by-a-relation-concrete-characterization%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
          2
          down vote



          accepted
          +150











          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 17:53















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted
          +150











          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 17:53













          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted
          +150







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted
          +150




          +150





          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.






          share|cite|improve this answer













          Why having $n in mathbb{N}_{>0}$ and $x_1,...,x_n in X$ so that $x_1 = x, x_n = y$ and for any $1 leq k < n$ having either $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in R$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k) in R$ implies that $(x,y) in {sim_R}$.




          This is easy. It suffices to show that $(x,y) in A$ for any all equivalence relation $A$ containing $R$. We have $(x_k,x_{k+1}) in A$ for any $1 leq k < n$, so $(x,y)=(x_1,x_n)in A$ by transitivity of $A$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 30 at 7:21









          Alex Ravsky

          37.9k32079




          37.9k32079












          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 17:53


















          • But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 8:46






          • 1




            This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
            – Alex Ravsky
            Nov 30 at 14:47












          • You are right, I'm sorry.
            – Jxt921
            Nov 30 at 17:53
















          But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 at 8:46




          But the problem is that it's not $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ for any $1 leq k < n$ and it's not $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$, but it's $(x_k,x_{k+1})$ or $(x_{k+1},x_k)$ for any $1 leq k < n$.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 at 8:46




          1




          1




          This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
          – Alex Ravsky
          Nov 30 at 14:47






          This is not a problem, because $A$ is symmetric. That is, if $(x_{k+1},x_k)in R$ then $(x_{k+1},x_k)in A$ and $(x_{k},x_{k+1})in A$.
          – Alex Ravsky
          Nov 30 at 14:47














          You are right, I'm sorry.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 at 17:53




          You are right, I'm sorry.
          – Jxt921
          Nov 30 at 17:53


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015900%2fequivalence-relation-generated-by-a-relation-concrete-characterization%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

          Image
          Wappen Deutschlandkarte 50.0825 8.24 117 Koordinaten: 50° 5′  N , 8° 14′  O Basisdaten Bundesland: Hessen Regierungsbezirk: Darmstadt Höhe: 117 m ü. NHN Fläche: 203,93 km 2 Einwohner: 278.654 (31. Dez. 2017) [1] Bevölkerungsdichte: 1366 Einwohner je km 2 Postleitzahlen: 65183–65207, 55246, 55252 Vorlage:Infobox Gemeinde in Deutschland/Wartung/PLZ enthält Text Vorwahlen: 0611, 06122, 06127, 06134 Kfz-Kennzeichen: WI Gemeindeschlüssel: 06 4 14 000 LOCODE: DE WIB NUTS: DE714 Stadtgliederung: 26 Ortsbezirke Adresse der Stadtverwaltung: Schlossplatz 6 65183 Wiesbaden Webpräsenz: www.wiesbaden.de Oberbürgermeister: Sven Gerich (SPD) Lage der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden in Hessen und im Regierungsbezirk Darmstadt Offizielles Logo der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden Flagge der Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden Wiesbaden is
          Read more

          Marschland

          Image
          Kilometerweite Marsch in den Vier- und Marschlanden am Elbdeich Die Wedeler Marschlandschaft in Schleswig-Holstein Der Hadelner Kanal zur Entwässerung der Marsch Die tief gelegene Marsch und ein Entwässerungskanal Das Schöpfwerk Otterndorf im Land Hadeln zur Entwässerung der Medem verfügte damals bereits über die größte Kreiselpumpe Europas. Das Schöpfwerk in Neuhaus für die Aue und des Neuhaus-Bülkauer Kanals Als Marsch(land) (v. niederdt., altsächs. mersc ) – auch Masch , Mersch oder Schwemmland genannt – bezeichnet man eine nacheiszeitlich entstandene geomorphologische Landform im Gebiet der nordwestdeutschen Küsten und Flüsse sowie vergleichbare Landformen weltweit. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Landschaft 2 Entstehung 3 Marschböden 4 Nutzung 5 Marschgebiete in Deutschland 6 Siehe auch 7 Literatur 8 Weblinks 9 Einzelnachweise Landschaft | Marschen sind generell flache Landstriche ohne natürliche Erhebungen. Si
          Read more

          Dieringhausen

          Image
          Dieringhausen Stadt Gummersbach 50.982777777778 7.5316666666667 165 Koordinaten: 50° 58′ 58″  N , 7° 31′ 54″  O Höhe: 165  (160–245)  m Einwohner: 5055  (30. Jun. 2016) Postleitzahl: 51645 Vorwahl: 02261 Lage von Dieringhausen in Gummersbach Im Hohl ca. 1927–1930 Ansicht von Südwesten bei Bünghausen Dieringhausen (im örtlichen Dialekt Dierkesen ) ist ein Ortsteil von Gummersbach im Oberbergischen Kreis, Regierungsbezirk Köln, Nordrhein-Westfalen (Deutschland). Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Geographie 2 Geschichte 3 Kultur 3.1 Sehenswürdigkeiten 3.2 Regelmäßige Veranstaltungen 4 Infrastruktur und Wirtschaft 4.1 Verkehr 4.1.1 Schienen- und Busverkehr 4.1.2 Straßen 4.2 Öffentliche Einrichtungen 4.2.1 Schulen und Bildungseinrichtungen 4.2.2 Kirchliche Einrichtungen 5 Persönlichkeiten 5.1 In Dieringhausen geboren 5.2 In Dieringhausen gelebt 6 Einzelnachweise 7
          Read more