0

Question 1: Let $x,y \in S$ such that $x\sim y$ if $x^2 =y^2\pmod6 $. Show that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation.

This is what I tried:
Reflexive: $x^2\pmod6 = x^2$ implying $x\sim x$
Symmetry: suppose $x\sim y$, then $x^2 =y^2\pmod6$
Operating by inverse of $x^2$ both sides we have $e=(x^2)^{-1} y^2\pmod6$
Then I have $y^2=x^2\pmod6$, hence $y\sim x$
I would like to get some corrections up to here because am not sure with this

Question 2. Find the orbits of the given permutation: $$v:\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}\quad\text{ defined by }\quad v(n)=n+3$$

Here is my solution which I would also want somebody to correct me!
Let the relation $\sim$ be defined on $\mathbb{Z}$ by $a\sim b$ if $b=a+3$
I consider that the orbits of $v$ are the classes of $\mathbb{Z}$ with respect to $\sim$ given by $\{b\mid b=a+3\}$. Thus I get only three orbits which are $\{1,4,7,10,…,3n-2\mid n\in \mathbb{Z}\}$, $\{2,5,8,…,3n-1\mid n\in \mathbb{Z}\}$, and $\{3,6,9,…,3n \mid n\in \mathbb{Z}\}$.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
neema
  • 141

3 Answers3

3

Your argument for symmetry of the first relation is flawed, because you do not know that there is such a thing as the inverse of $x$ modulo $6$ (for example, what if $x^2 \equiv 0 \pmod{6}$? ) But you don't have to: if $x^2\equiv y^2\pmod{6}$, then $6|x^2-y^2$, hence $6|y^2-x^2$, so $y^2\equiv x^2\pmod{6}$.

And you are still missing transitivity: if $x^2\equiv y^2\pmod{6}$ and $y^2\equiv z^2\pmod{6}$, why must $x^2\equiv z^2\pmod{6}$? (Hint. Just use the definitions).

Zev Chonoles
  • 129,973
Arturo Magidin
  • 398,050
  • ;thanks sir, do yo mean a divides b by b|a instead of b/a? – neema Dec 17 '11 at 21:08
  • what about question 2, am i correct? – neema Dec 17 '11 at 21:13
  • "$a|b$" means "$a$ divides $b$" means "there exists an integer $k$ such that $ak=b$". This is different from $b/a$ which denotes the rational (possibly integer) number you get by actually dividing $b$ by $a$. $a|b$ is a relation between $a$ and $b$; $b/a$ is a number resulting from performing an operation on $a$ and $b$. – Arturo Magidin Dec 18 '11 at 00:16
  • Question 2 is badly written, because the sets you describe look as if they were finite and start at the least positive integers. It is also false to claim that $\sim$ as you define it is an equivalence relation: it's not reflexive, it's not symmetric, and it's not transitive. So while it is true that there are three orbits, your argument is very confused. – Arturo Magidin Dec 18 '11 at 00:18
  • :okay..i want to know more, is it possible for the permutation of a given set to have orbits, given that the relation involving a and b is not an equivalent relation? – neema Dec 18 '11 at 14:18
  • @neema: Yes, they can; the problem is that the definition you gave is not an equivalence relation, not that there aren't any orbits. What you need to do is fix the definition of the relation, not question the underlying theory. Better definition: $a\sim b$ if and only if there is an integer $k$ such that $a=b+3k$. Much better definition: $a\sim b$ if and only if $a\equiv b\pmod{3}$. Now try to figure out why those equivalence relations are such that the orbits equal the equivalence classes. – Arturo Magidin Dec 18 '11 at 18:52
  • thank u alot, i understand now! – neema Dec 22 '11 at 16:04
3

Hint $ $ Show more generally that if $\rm\ f\,:\,S\to T\,$ and $\rm\, \equiv\,\, $ is an equivalence relation on $\rm\,T,\,$ then $\rm\ \{\:\! (x,y)\,:\, f(x)\equiv f(y)\:\!\}\ $ is an equivalence relation on $\rm\,S.\,$ It's called the (equivalence) kernel of $\rm\,f,\,$ if we view the codomain as the quotient set $\rm\, T/\!\equiv\,,\, $ which above is $\rm\ \mathbb Z/6,\,$ with $\rm\ f(x) = x^2\,.$

See also the more general notions of difference kernels and equalizers, and see this prior question where the fiber viewpoint is mentioned.

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
1

Hint for #1. Any relation defined via equality of the values of a function is an equivalence relation. More precisely:

If $f:X\to Y$ and $\sim$ is defined on $X$ by $x\sim y$ iff $f(x)= f(y)$, then $\sim$ is an equivalence relation.

Conversely, every equivalence relation arises in this way.

lhf
  • 216,483
  • 1
    Note that to apply this directly requires viewing $:\mathbb Z/6:$ as a quotient set, because it uses an equality $\rm:f(x) = f(y):$ vs. a congruence $\rm:f(x)\equiv f(y):.:$ But even if the OP has not yet learned about quotient sets, they may still comprehend this viewpoint by using congruence instead of equality - see my answer. – Bill Dubuque Dec 17 '11 at 18:51
  • @Bill, yes, nicely put, thanks. – lhf Dec 17 '11 at 19:28