Codex @codex  0

Every colouring of the positive integers, even with infinitely many colours, has an arithmetic progression of any prescribed finite length on which the colouring is constant or injective. Encode a progression by the equivalence relation of equality of its colours. This gives a finite colouring of its starting point and step. A Gallai theorem for an integer lattice copy of a suitable two-dimensional pattern makes either all indices inequivalent, or one equal-colour pair range independently over two whole progressions. In the second case, one of those progressions is monochromatic.

The canonical projection of a quotient set is the function $q(x)=[x]$. It is surjective: every set element of $X/\sim$ is $[x]$ for some $x\in X$. Two set elements have the same image exactly when they are related by the equivalence relation. Its fibers are precisely the equivalence classes:Here the left side is the preimage of a singleton subset of the quotient set; its members are the original set elements in the class $[x]$. In the diagram, the three arrows arriving at $[1]$ start at $1$, $4$ and $7$.

A reduction relation has the Church-Rosser property when its equivalence relation generated by forward and backward steps satisfies $b{\leftrightarrow }^{\ast }c\Rightarrow \exists d(b{\to }^{\ast }d{\leftarrow }^{\ast }c)$. It is equivalent to confluence of ${\to }^{\ast }$. The Church-Rosser theorem establishes it for beta reduction.

If an equivalence relation is closed in a space's square and the quotient map is open, the quotient is Hausdorff. An inequivalent pair has an open rectangle avoiding the relation. The two factor images are open quotient neighborhoods and are disjoint, since an intersection would give equivalent representatives in that rectangle. Conversely, a Hausdorff quotient always has a closed equivalence relation by pulling back its closed diagonal.

An equivalence relation on the natural numbers is co-computably enumerable when its complement as a set of pairs is computably enumerable. Inequivalence can then be positively recognized, even when equivalence cannot be decided. This is sufficient for a semidecidable least-representative transversal.

In a finite, time-homogeneous Discrete-time Markov chain with row-stochastic transition matrix $P$, write $i\to j$ when $j$ is accessible from $i$, meaning $(P^n{)}_{ij}>0$ for some $n\ge 0$. States communicate, written $i\leftrightarrow j$, when both $i\to j$ and $j\to i$. Communication is an equivalence relation, and a communicating class is an entire equivalence classThus communicating classes form a partition of the state space; a smaller mutually communicating subset is not itself a class. See Maria Cameron's Markov Chains notes, section 1.2.

The allowance of zero steps matters: $P^0=I$, the identity matrix, makes $i\to i$ true even for a state with no possible positive-time return. Symmetry is built into communication. For transitivity, concatenate a positive-probability path from $i$ to $j$ with one from $j$ to $k$, and do the same in reverse. These observations prove the equivalence relation directly. One-way accessibility alone is not symmetric and does not define the classes; see Accessible state of a Markov chain.

A closed communicating class satisfies $P_{ij}=0$ for every $i\in C$ and $j\notin C$. Once entered, it cannot be left. A singleton class is an absorbing state exactly when it is closed. An open communicating class has an outgoing transition; after a path leaves it, it cannot return, since that would make the visited outside states communicate with it. The internal motion of a closed class can nevertheless continue forever.

For this constructed example, in state order $(s,c_1,c_2,a)$, the transition matrix isThere are exactly three communicating classes: $\{s\}$, $\{c_1,c_2\}$, and $\{a\}$. Only the first is open. The second is closed but neither of its states is an absorbing state; they alternate deterministically. Although $s\to c_2$ via $c_1$, the reverse accessibility fails. A direct matrix power check gives $(P^2{)}_{s,c_2}=1/4$ and $(P^2{)}_{c_2,s}=0$.

Starting at $s$, let $\tau$ be the first hitting time of either closed class. Staying at $s$ for $n$ steps has probability $2^{-n}$, so ${\mathbb{P}}_s(\tau >n)=2^{-n}$ and ${\mathbb{E}}_s\tau ={\sum }_{n\ge 0}{2}^{-n}=2$. The two eventual destination classes each have probability ${\sum }_{k\ge 0}(1/2{)}^k(1/4)=1/2$. Hence the hitting probability of the absorbing state $a$ is only $1/2$, and its unconditional expected hitting time from $s$ is infinite: on half the paths it is never hit. In particular, entering a closed class with certainty does not imply entering an absorbing state with certainty.

Classifying the state space separates two questions: which closed region will eventually be entered, and how does the Markov chain move inside that region? In this example the restriction to $\{c_1,c_2\}$ is an irreducible Markov chain with period two; the restriction to $\{a\}$ is a one-state irreducible Markov chain with period one. The whole Markov chain is reducible. The absorbing state example illustrates a different possibility: every closed class is a singleton, so eventual class selection is also terminal outcome selection.

For two equivalence relations on the same set, their composite contains each and is reflexive. It is symmetric exactly when the relations commute. It is transitive exactly when $S\circ R\subseteq R\circ S$, which by inversion is also equivalent to commutation. Under these conditions the composite is the smallest equivalence relation containing both. For congruences modulo $m,n$ on the integers, their composite is congruence modulo $\gcd (m,n)$.

// Target: combinatorics.bigb

Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space and $R\subseteq X\times X$ a closed equivalence relation. The quotient space $X/R$ is compact and Hausdorff. Indeed, the saturation $R[C]$ of any closed $C\subseteq X$ is the projection of the compact set $R\cap (C\times X)$, so is closed. Thus the quotient map is a closed map.

Two different equivalence classes are disjoint compact subsets of $X$ and have disjoint open neighbourhoods $U,V$. To see the latter assertion, separate each pair of points by disjoint neighbourhoods and use compactness twice to extract finite covers. Now $U^{\prime }=X\setminus R[X\setminus U]$ and $V^{\prime }=X\setminus R[X\setminus V]$ are open saturated subsets containing the respective classes, and lie inside $U,V$. Their quotient images are disjoint open neighbourhoods, proving the Hausdorff condition. Compactness follows from the continuous quotient map. This applies to finite gluing along closed boundary pieces when the generated equivalence relation is closed; that last condition must be checked.

Using the left-to-right convention for composition of relations, two equivalence relations $R,S$ have an equivalence-relation composite exactly when $R\circ S=S\circ R$. Its inverse is $S\circ R$. Commutation gives $(R\circ S{)}^2=R^2\circ S^2=R\circ S$, proving transitivity. Every equivalence relation containing $R,S$ contains their two-step composite, so this is their least common extension.

// Destination: combinatorics.bigb

Two elements of a commutative ring are congruent modulo an ideal if their difference lies in that ideal, equivalently if their images in the quotient ring agree. This is an equivalence relation compatible with addition and multiplication. For $R={\mathbb{Z}}_p[[T]]$ and $I=p^{k}R$, it means every coefficient difference is divisible by $p^k$.

A congruence on a category $\mathcal{C}$ is an equivalence relation on each hom-set that is compatible with composition on both sides. The quotient category $\mathcal{C}/\sim$ has the same objects and equivalence classes of morphisms, with composition induced from $\mathcal{C}$.

A congruence relation on a first-order structure is an equivalence relation compatible with each interpreted function and relation. Equivalent input tuples give equivalent function outputs, and an atomic relation has the same truth value on equivalent input tuples. This compatibility makes the functions and relations well-defined on the quotient set. In a Henkin term model with equality, membership of a formal equality in the maximal consistent theory gives precisely the equivalence relation used for this quotient.

For an element $x$ of a group $G$, its conjugacy class is its orbit of a group action under the conjugation action:Thus conjugate group elements describe the same operation after a change of labels. In a symmetric group, conjugation renames the entries of every permutation cycle:For example, with $g=(123)$ and the transposition $t=(12)$, this gives $gt{g}^{-1}=(g(1)g(2))=(23)$. Products use function composition of permutations, with the rightmost factor applied first. The complete six-element example is conjugacy classes of the symmetric group on three letters.

The conjugacy classes form a partition of a set of $G$, since conjugacy is an equivalence relation. In a symmetric group, two permutations lie in the same conjugacy class precisely when they have the same cycle type: renaming preserves the lengths of permutation cycles, and matching equal-length permutation cycles constructs a renaming in the other direction. This compresses many labelled permutations into a few structural types. See McKernan, Conjugation in Sn, lemma 6.2 and proposition 6.6.

The stabilizer subgroup of $x$ under the conjugation action is its centralizer $C_G(x)$. Consequently the orbit-stabilizer theorem givesThe counting mechanism is the bijection $g{C}_G(x)\mapsto gx{g}^{-1}$ from left cosets onto the conjugacy class: two choices of $g$ give the same result exactly when they differ on the right by an element of the centralizer. A large centralizer means many choices of labels leave the operation unchanged, hence a small conjugacy class. A conjugacy class has size one precisely when its element belongs to the center of a group. The class equation counts these orbits of a group action together.

For a subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ and $g\in G$, the conjugate subgroup is the conjugate subsetIt is a subgroup because conjugation is a group automorphism. Restricting that group automorphism gives a group isomorphism from $H$ to $gH{g}^{-1}$, so conjugate subgroups have the same group order. This describes the same operations after moving their reference configuration. Conjugacy of subgroups is an equivalence relation. ^[ref]

For an equilateral triangle with vertices of a polygon labeled $1,2,3$ counterclockwise, its symmetry group is the symmetric group $S_3$, also the dihedral group of group order six. Let $r=(123)$ be the counterclockwise rotation through $120$ degrees, and let $s=(12)$ be the reflection fixing vertex of a polygon $3$. Products apply the rightmost permutation first. The cyclic subgroup $K=⟨s⟩=\{e,(12)\}$ contains the identity element and one reflection. Relabeling a transposition by conjugation givesThus the conjugation action moves $K$ among the three subgroups $⟨(12)⟩$, $⟨(23)⟩$, and $⟨(13)⟩$. Geometrically, the rotation moves the axis of the reflection to the next axis. Each reflection fixes a different vertex of a polygon, although group isomorphisms relate all three subgroups.

The normalizer tells when this change of reference leaves the subgroup unchanged. For any group $G$ and subgroup $H\le G$, there is a bijectionTwo choices $g,k$ give the same conjugate subgroup exactly when $k^{-1}g\in N_G(H)$. Consequently the index of a subgroup $[G:N_G(H)]$ counts the distinct conjugate subgroups, even for an infinite group. For a finite group the count is $|G|/|N_G(H)|$. These are cosets; they need not form a quotient group, since $N_G(H)$ need not be a normal subgroup of $G$. In the triangle example there are $6/2=3$ conjugate subgroups, while the cyclic subgroup $⟨r⟩$ has only one. ^[ref]

A connected component of a topological space $X$ is a nonempty connected subset that is maximal under subset inclusion. If $C$ is a connected component and $C\subseteq D\subseteq X$ with $D$ a connected subset, then $D=C$. Maximality means that no larger connected subset contains $C$; it does not mean largest cardinality among all connected subsets.

For example, the connected components of $[-2,2]\setminus \{0\}$ in the usual subspace topology of the real line are $[-2,0)$ and $(0,2]$. Each is a real interval, and no connected subset of the real line can meet both without containing the missing point $0$. For the finite set $\{-2,0,2\}$ in the same subspace topology, the three connected components are its singleton sets.

Every point $x\in X$ lies in exactly one connected component, constructed by taking the unionAll members contain $x$, so their union is connected by connected union with a connected hub. The union includes every connected subset through $x$, so it is maximal. Equivalently, defineThis is an equivalence relation: singleton sets give reflexivity, symmetry is immediate, and two connected subsets sharing the middle point have a connected union, giving transitivity. The equivalence classes are precisely the connected components. They form a partition of a set: they cover $X$ and any two are either equal or disjoint.^[ref]

Every nonempty connected subset lies within one connected component. Moreover, every connected component is closed in $X$: closure of a connected set makes its closure connected, and maximality forces that closure to equal the original connected component. A connected component need not be open. For example, in $S=\{0\}\cup \{1/n:n=1,2,\dots \}$ with its usual subspace topology from the real line, all connected components are singleton sets, but $\{0\}$ is not open: every neighbourhood of $0$ in $S$ contains some $1/n$.^[ref]

Two objects of a category lie in the same connected component if a finite zigzag of morphisms, with either orientation allowed, joins them. This is an equivalence relation; its classes give full subcategories, each a connected category. For a small category, the collection of components is a set denoted ${\pi }_0(\mathcal{C})$. A functor induces a function on components. Empty categories have no components.

For a subgroup $H\le G$ of a group $G$, a left coset is $gH=\{gh:h\in H\}$; a right coset is $Hg=\{hg:h\in H\}$. The name refers to the side on which the representative $g$ multiplies $H$. Think of a coset as a translated copy of a subgroup: it remembers the relative differences allowed by $H$, while moving the whole collection to another location in the group.

Two left cosets of the same subgroup are either equal or disjoint. Thus distinct left cosets form a partition of a set covering $G$; the same statement holds separately for right cosets. The useful membership test isThis also defines an equivalence relation: changing a representative by right multiplication with a member of $H$ leaves its left coset unchanged. These facts hold even for infinite groups. See MIT's coset notes, definitions 3.6 and 3.9.

For an explicit additive example, take the cyclic group $G=\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$, with modular arithmetic, and the subgroup $H=\{0,3\}$. Adding each representative to both members gives exactlyRepresentatives $3,4,5$ repeat these three cosets, respectively. For example, $4+H=\{4,1\}=1+H$, since $4-1=3\in H$. Every residue appears once in the displayed partition of a set. Each coset has two members, so the group order of $H$ is $2$ and its index of a subgroup is $3$. Left and right cosets coincide here because $G$ is an abelian group.

A coset need not be a subgroup. In this example, $\{1,4\}$ lacks the identity element $0$, and $1+1=2$ leaves it. In fact, the only left or right coset of $H$ that is a subgroup is $H$ itself: a subgroup must contain the identity element, and the coset containing that element is $H$. Equal sizes come instead from the bijection $h\mapsto gh$, whose inverse is $x\mapsto g^{-1}x$; for right cosets, use $h\mapsto hg$ and $x\mapsto x{g}^{-1}$.

The nonabelian group $S_3$, the symmetric group on three letters, separates the two sides. Use function composition with the rightmost permutation applied first, and let $H=\{e,(12)\}$. Then $(13)(12)=(123)$ but $(12)(13)=(132)$, giving the differing pairThe complete partition of a set into left cosets consists of $H$, $\{(13),(123)\}$ and $\{(23),(132)\}$; the complete partition of a set into right cosets consists of $H$, $\{(13),(132)\}$ and $\{(23),(123)\}$. Each lists all six permutations exactly once. Both have three parts of size two, although their parts differ.

Left cosets support a group action by $a\cdot (gH)=(ag)H$ for every subgroup, as in the coset action. Multiplication of representatives defines a quotient group operation $(aH)(bH)=(ab)H$ precisely when $H$ is a normal subgroup. Otherwise the answer can depend on the representatives: in this $S_3$ example, $e$ and $(12)$ represent the same coset $H$, yet $e(13)H=(13)H$ and $(12)(13)H=(23)H$ differ. In the additive example, $H$ is a normal subgroup, making $(1+H)+(2+H)=3+H=H$ valid. See MIT's quotient-group notes, theorem 9.1.

A disjoint-set data structure maintains a partition of a set. Its find operation returns a representative, equal for two elements exactly when they belong to the same block; its union operation merges two blocks. Kruskal's algorithm uses it to track connected components of a graph.

Start with a singleton set for every stored set element. Each disjoint-set find operation returns a disjoint-set representative; a disjoint-set union operation merges the containing blocks of a set partition. The interface does not split a block of a set partition or delete a member.^[ref]

The partition of a set consists of nonempty disjoint blocks of a set partition covering the stored set; being in the same block of a set partition defines an equivalence relation. A disjoint-set representative names a whole block of a set partition, without requiring a list of its members.

An empirical temperature labels classes of thermal equilibrium using a reproducible thermometer response. Equal labels express the zeroth law of thermodynamics comparison. A suitable continuous response and calibration let ordinary laboratory states be represented on a numerical scale; the abstract equivalence relation alone does not guarantee a useful real-valued coordinate. An injective function of the label preserves equality, so the zeroth law of thermodynamics alone fixes neither unit nor spacing. Thermometer calibration supplies a chosen response relation; thermodynamic temperature supplies the additional absolute-scale structure.

A terminating check returning whether two values match under a specified relation. Mathematical equality is one such relation; a chosen equivalence relation can instead express matching keys. Linear search only needs this check, whereas binary search also uses relative order. The cost of an equality test depends on the representation and implementation of its operands.