Difference between revisions of "Notes:Quotient"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
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 {{M|\forall x\in A\forall y\in A[\pi(x)=\pi(y)] }}
+
* 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 (dashed line) is induced such that the following diagram commutes:
+
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.

This is best thought of as a map:

  • π:XX by π:x[x] where recall:
    • [a]={xX|xa}, the notation [a] makes sense, as by the reflexive property of we have a[a]

Quotient structure

Suppose that :X×XX is any map, and writing xy:=(x,y) when does induce an 'equivalent' mapping on X?

  • This is a mapping: :X×XX where [x][y]=[xy]
    • 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 xy
  • Then go forward again to [xy]

In functional terms we may say:

  • :X×XX given by:
    ([x],[y])π(π1([x])π1([y])if  makes sense)=[π1([x])π1([y])]

Here π1([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 AB (for AX and BX) if abab

As then

  • We can define π(A) (for AX) properly if xAyA[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:

  1. The dashed arrow exists by function composition.
  2. 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×XX given by: :=(π+)(π×π)1

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.