Example 20: Two descriptions of one relation on {1, …, 9}
Let . Let be a relation in given by and be another relation on given by Show that .
(The printed book has a stray closing brace after in the definition of ; it is a misprint and has been left out here.)
The elements of , and leave remainders 1, 2 and 0 respectively on division by 3.
: Let . Then are in the same set, so , for some integers . So is divisible by 3, and . Thus .
: Let , so , . Let , with . Then
is a multiple of 3 with , so . So are in the same set, and . Thus .
Hence .
Want the reason behind every step, the basics and the checks?
The three groups , , are the elements of that leave remainder 1, 2 and 0 when divided by 3. And " is divisible by 3" is the same as " and leave the same remainder on division by 3". So both descriptions say " and lie in the same remainder group". To prove two sets are equal, we show each is contained in the other: and .
- Given
- Two relations on : described by divisibility, described by three groups.
- To show
- , that is, they contain exactly the same ordered pairs.
- Plan
- (1) Recall how to prove two sets equal. (2) Sort by remainder on division by 3. (3) Show : two numbers in the same group differ by a multiple of 3. (4) Show : if the difference is a multiple of 3, the remainders agree, so the numbers lie in the same group. (5) Conclude, and count the pairs as a check.
Basics you need
Two sets are equal when they have exactly the same elements. The standard proof: show (every element of is in ) and . Together these give . Basics: sets
and are subsets of , so "" is an equality of sets of ordered pairs. Basics: what a relation is
Every integer can be written with an integer and remainder , and this is unique. For example and . Basics: integers and remainders
is the set whose elements are and . Saying means both and . When the set is just , so pairs like are included.
The relation " divides " is an equivalence relation whose classes are the remainder groups (the book shows this on just after Example 5). Basics: equivalence classes
Solution
Sort the elements of by remainder
Remainder on division by 3 Elements of Form 1 , , 2 , , 0 , , So the three groups used in are precisely the sets of elements of with remainder 1, 2 and 0. Every element of is in exactly one group.
This is the "characteristic" of the three sets that the textbook mentions. Naming it precisely (same remainder) turns both directions of the proof into short calculations. The fact that the groups do not overlap and cover follows from Basic 3: each number has one and only one remainder.Every integer has a unique remainder 0, 1 or 2 on division by 3 (Basic 3).Show
Take any . Then and lie in the same group, so they have the same remainder (Step 1):
Subtracting,
and is an integer. So is divisible by 3, that is . Since was an arbitrary element of , .
The remainders are equal, so they cancel when we subtract, leaving a multiple of 3. This handles all three groups at once, since we wrote a general remainder . For example, in : , , , all multiples of 3. Note that negative differences and 0 count: and .means for some integer (possibly negative or zero). The difference of two integers is an integer. Basics: integersShow
Take any , so for some integer . Write and with remainders . Then
so is a multiple of 3. But and are each 0, 1 or 2, so . The only multiple of 3 between and is 0. Hence : and have the same remainder, so by Step 1 they lie in the same group, and is a subset of , or . That is . Hence .
This is the direction that the textbook passes over quickly, and it needs a reason: why can't two numbers from different groups differ by a multiple of 3? The argument shows that the difference of the remainders would then be or , which is never a multiple of 3. The trick of squeezing between and is what forces it to be 0.The only multiple of 3 strictly between and is 0. Uniqueness of the remainder (Basic 3).Conclude:
We have (Step 3) and (Step 2). Therefore .
Each dot is a pair in the relation, with the row and the column. On the left, rows and columns are in the order 1 to 9, which is how sees things: the dots lie on the diagonals where is or . On the right, the same 27 dots with rows and columns reordered by group: they fill three solid blocks, which is how describes them. Set equality is exactly mutual inclusion (Basic 1). The figure gives a picture of the same fact: one set of 27 dots, seen in two orders. The left pattern is "difference divisible by 3"; the right pattern is "both in the same group".. Basics: setsCount the pairs as a cross-check
In , each group has 3 elements, so it gives ordered pairs (both entries chosen from the group, repeats allowed). Three groups give pairs. In , list by the value of :
The proof is already complete, but counting gives an independent sanity check: equal sets must have the same number of elements. The differences for range from to , and the multiples of 3 in that range are . For the pairs are , six of them; for they are .Counting ordered pairs from a 3-element set with repetition allowed: . Basics: counting choices
. Both consist of the 27 pairs for which and leave the same remainder on division by 3: two numbers in the same group differ by a multiple of 3 (), and two numbers that differ by a multiple of 3 must be in the same group (). This agrees with the textbook's conclusion.
Pick a few pairs. : is divisible by 3, and . In both. : , and . In both. : is not divisible by 3, and 4 and 6 are in different groups. In neither. The verification script builds both relations as sets of pairs from their definitions and confirms they are identical, each with 27 pairs.
- Proving only one inclusion. alone does not give equality; could be bigger. Both directions are needed.
- Forgetting pairs like . , so ; and is divisible by 3, so .
- Ignoring negative differences. because .
- Checking a few pairs and calling it a proof. Here has only 81 pairs, so checking all of them would be a valid proof, but checking a handful is not.
- To prove two relations (sets) are equal, prove inclusion both ways.
- "" means " and leave the same remainder on division by ". The classes are the remainder groups.
- An equivalence relation can be described by a rule or by listing its classes. This example shows the two descriptions agree, which is the partition idea of Section 1.2 in action.
Every fact used, and where it comes from
| Fact | Used in | Source |
|---|---|---|
| and | Step 4 | Equality of sets (Class 11, Sets) |
| Division with a unique remainder 0, 1 or 2 | Steps 1–3 | Division algorithm for integers |
| Steps 2, 3 | Definition of divisibility | |
| Relations as subsets of | Step 4 | Section 1.2 (Lesson: relations) |
| "3 divides " partitions into remainder classes | Basics, Take-away | Section 1.2, note after Example 5 (Lesson: equivalence relations) |
| Both relations have the same 27 pairs | Step 5, Check | Brute force in the site's verification script |
Tell us if something on this page is wrong or unclear, or if you would like a fuller explanation, another method or a new feature. Send feedback on this problem →