Difference between revisions of "Notes:Quotient"
m |
m (→As a diagram: another typo) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | __TOC__ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Terminology== | ||
Let {{M|X}} be a set and let {{M|\sim}} be an [[equivalence relation]] on the elements of {{M|X}}. | Let {{M|X}} be a set and let {{M|\sim}} be an [[equivalence relation]] on the elements of {{M|X}}. | ||
* Then {{M|\frac{X}{\sim} }} denotes the "[[equivalence class|equivalence classes]]" of {{M|~}} | * Then {{M|\frac{X}{\sim} }} denotes the "[[equivalence class|equivalence classes]]" of {{M|~}} | ||
Line 23: | Line 26: | ||
* We can say {{M|A\odot B}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X}} and {{M|B\subseteq X}}) if {{M|a\odot b\sim a'\odot b'}} | * We can say {{M|A\odot B}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X}} and {{M|B\subseteq X}}) if {{M|a\odot b\sim a'\odot b'}} | ||
As then | As then | ||
− | * We can define {{M|\pi(A)}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X }}) properly if {{ | + | * We can define {{M|\pi(A)}} (for {{M|A\subseteq X }}) properly if {{MM|1=\forall x\in A\forall y\in A[\pi(x)=\pi(y)] }} |
This all seems very contrived | This all seems very contrived | ||
===As a diagram=== | ===As a diagram=== | ||
− | I seem to be asking when a map ( | + | I seem to be asking when a map (dotted line) is induced such that the following diagram commutes: |
{| class="wikitable" border="1" | {| class="wikitable" border="1" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="font-size:1.4em;" | | | style="font-size:1.4em;" | | ||
− | {{MM|1=\begin{xy}\xymatrix{X\times X \ar@{->}[r]^-\odot \ar@{->}[d]_-{\pi\times\pi}& X \ar@{->}[d]^-{\pi} \\ | + | {{MM|1=\begin{xy}\xymatrix{X\times X \ar@{->}[r]^-\odot \ar@{->}[d]_-{\pi\times\pi} \ar@{-->}[dr]^{\pi\circ\odot} & X \ar@{->}[d]^-{\pi} \\ |
\frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim} \ar@{.>}[r]_-{\odot} & \frac{X}{\sim} }\end{xy} }} | \frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim} \ar@{.>}[r]_-{\odot} & \frac{X}{\sim} }\end{xy} }} | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Diagram | ! Diagram | ||
|} | |} | ||
+ | It is quite simple really: | ||
+ | # The dashed arrow exists by function composition. | ||
+ | # Using the [[Factor (function)]] idea, if we have (for {{M|(v,v')\in V\times V}} and {{M|(u,u')\in V\times V}} - from wanting the diagram to commute): | ||
+ | #* {{M|1=[(\pi\times\pi)(v,v')=(\pi\times\pi)(u,u')]\implies[\pi(+(v,v'))=\pi(+(u,u'))]}} then | ||
+ | #** there exists a unique function, {{M|\odot:\frac{X}{\sim}\times\frac{X}{\sim}\rightarrow\frac{X}{\sim} }} given by: {{M|1=\odot:=(\pi\circ+)\circ(\pi\times\pi)^{-1} }} | ||
+ | Note that while technically these are not functions (as they'd have to be bijective in this case) as FOR ANY {{M|1=x=(\pi\times\pi)^{-1}(a,b)}} we have {{M|\odot(x)}} being the same, it doesn't matter what element of {{M|(\pi\times\pi)^{-1} }} we take. |
Latest revision as of 09:38, 24 November 2015
Terminology
Let X be a set and let ∼ be an equivalence relation on the elements of X.
- Then X∼ denotes the "equivalence classes" of
This is best thought of as a map:
- π:X→X∼ by π:x↦[x] where recall:
- [a]={x∈X|x∼a}, the notation [a] makes sense, as by the reflexive property of ∼ we have a∈[a]
Quotient structure
Suppose that ⊙:X×X→X is any map, and writing x⊙y:=⊙(x,y) when does ⊙ induce an 'equivalent' mapping on X∼?
- This is a mapping: ⊙:X∼×X∼→X∼ where [x]⊙[y]=[x⊙y]
- should such an operation be 'well defined' (which means it doesn't matter what representatives we pick of [x] and [y] in the computation)
Alternatively
We have no concept of ⊙ on X∼, but we do on X. The idea is that:
- Given a [x] and a [y] we go back
- To an x and a y representing those classes.
- Compute x⊙y
- Then go forward again to [x⊙y]
In functional terms we may say:
- ⊙:X∼×X∼→X∼ given by:
- ⊙([x],[y])↦π(π−1([x])⊙π−1([y])⏟if ⊙ makes sense)=[π−1([x])⊙π−1([y])]
Here π−1([x]) is a subset of X containing exactly those things which are equivalent to x (as these things all map to [x]).
- We can say A⊙B (for A⊆X and B⊆X) if a⊙b∼a′⊙b′
As then
- We can define π(A) (for A⊆X) properly if ∀x∈A∀y∈A[π(x)=π(y)]
This all seems very contrived
As a diagram
I seem to be asking when a map (dotted line) is induced such that the following diagram commutes:
|
Diagram |
---|
It is quite simple really:
- The dashed arrow exists by function composition.
- Using the Factor (function) idea, if we have (for (v,v′)∈V×V and (u,u′)∈V×V - from wanting the diagram to commute):
- [(π×π)(v,v′)=(π×π)(u,u′)]⟹[π(+(v,v′))=π(+(u,u′))] then
- there exists a unique function, ⊙:X∼×X∼→X∼ given by: ⊙:=(π∘+)∘(π×π)−1
- [(π×π)(v,v′)=(π×π)(u,u′)]⟹[π(+(v,v′))=π(+(u,u′))] then
Note that while technically these are not functions (as they'd have to be bijective in this case) as FOR ANY x=(π×π)−1(a,b) we have ⊙(x) being the same, it doesn't matter what element of (π×π)−1 we take.