0
$\begingroup$

My question is:

How many different equivalence relations can we define on the set $A = \{x,y,z\}$?

I know that an equivalence relation is a relation that is symmetric, reflexive, and transitive, so how many I go about considering these possible relations?

I am particularly curious about this relation: $\{(x,x), (y,y), (z,z)\}$ Is it one possibility?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the identity relation "$xRy$ iff $x=y$: is an equivalence relation. $\endgroup$ Commented May 1, 2017 at 20:23

3 Answers 3

4
$\begingroup$

An equivalence relation is defined by its equivalence classes. Given an equivalence relation, its equivalence classes constitute a partition of the set $A$.

Hence, an easy way to count the number of equivalence relations is to count the number of ways in which $A$ can be partitioned. This is provided by the Bell number $B_3 = 5$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @mlc. I am still a bit behind, from these partitions below:{ {x}, {y}, {z} } { {z}, {y, z} } { {y}, {x, z} } { {z}, {x, y} } { {z, y, z} }., from which do we get the equivalence relation {(x,x), (y,y), (z,z)}? I'm confused as to how that's a possibility $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2017 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ @haxtar You get $\{(x,x),(y,y),(z,z)\}$ from $\{\,\{x\},\{y\},\{z\}\,\}$. The general rule is that each element is related to all the elements in its own block of the partition and only to those. Therefore at the other end of the spectrum the partition $\{\,\{x,y,z\}\,\}$ corresponds to the relation $\{x,y,z\} \times \{x,y,z\}$ (all nine pairs). $\endgroup$ Commented May 2, 2017 at 3:44
2
$\begingroup$

An equivalence relation separates the set into equivalence classes, so you are looking at the number of ways to separate $\{x,y,z\}$ into groups. Your example is the identity relation, where each element is only related to itself. Yes, it is an equivalence relation. It separates the set into three equivalence classes, one for each element.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

This task is solved here. The elements of the example you mentioned must be part of every equivalence relation, due to reflexivity. If you are not too familiar with this concept, write down all the reflexive pairs, than add some symmetric ones and see how far you can go.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.