What is the difference between equality and equivalence?

Question

I've read a few instances in reading mathematics and computer science that use the equivalence symbol ≡, (basically an '=' with three lines) and it always makes sense to me to read this as if it were equality. What is the difference between these two concepts?

Answer 1

In languages that I have seen that differentiate between equality and equivalence, equality usually means the type and value are the same while equivalence means that just the values are the same. For example:

int i = 3;
double d = 3.0;

i and d would be have an equivalence relationship since they represent the same value but not equality since they have different types. Other languages may have different ideas of equivalence (such as whether two variables represent the same object).

Answer 2

w:

In mathematics, an equivalence relation is a binary relation between two elements of a set which groups them together as being "equivalent" in some way. Let a, b, and c be arbitrary elements of some set X. Then "a ~ b" or "a ≡ b" denotes that a is equivalent to b.

An equivalence relation "~" is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.

In other words, = is just an instance of equivalence relation.

Edit: This seemingly simple criteria of being reflexive, symmetric, and transitive are not always trivial. See Bloch's Effective Java 2nd ed p. 35 for example,

public final class CaseInsentiveitveString {
...
 // broken
 @Override public boolean equals(Object o) {
  if (o instance of CaseInsentiveitveString)
   return s.equalsIgnoreCase(
    ((CaseInsentiveitveString) o).s);
  if (o instanceof String) // One-way interoperability!
   return s.equalsIgnoreCase((String) o);
  return false;
 }
... 

}

The above equals implementation breaks the symmetry because CaseInsentiveitveString knows about String class, but the String class doesn't know about CaseInsentiveitveString.

Answer 3

You could have two statements that have the same truth value (equivalent) or two statements that are the same (equality). As well the "equal sign with three bars" can also mean "is defined as."

Answer 4

A lot of languages distinguish between equality of the objects and equality of the values of those objects.

Ruby for example has 3 different ways to test equality. The first, equal?, compares two variables to see if they point to the same instance. This is equivalent in a C-style language of doing a check to see if 2 pointers refer to the same address. The second method, ==, tests value equality. So 3 == 3.0 would be true in this case. The third, eql?, compares both value and class type.

Lisp also has different concepts of equality depending on what you're trying to test.

Answer 5

The difference resides above all in the level at which the two concepts are introduced. '≡' is a symbol of formal logic where, given two propositions a and b, a ≡ b means (a => b AND b => a).

'=' is instead the typical example of an equivalence relation on a set, and presumes at least a theory of sets. When one defines a particular set, usually he provides it with a suitable notion of equality, which comes in the form of an equivalence relation and uses the symbol '='. For example, when you define the set Q of the rational numbers, you define equality a/b = c/d (where a/b and c/d are rational) if and only if ad = bc (where ad and bc are integers, the notion of equality for integers having already been defined elsewhere).

Sometimes you will find the informal notation f(x) ≡ g(x), where f and g are functions: It means that f and g have the same domain and that f(x) = g(x) for each x in such domain (this is again an equivalence relation). Finally, sometimes you find ≡ (or ~) as a generic symbol to denote an equivalence relation.

Answer 6

Equality really is a special kind of equivalence relation, in fact. Consider what it means to say:

0.9999999999999999... = 1

That suggests that equality is just an equivalence relation on "string numbers" (which are defined more formally as functions from Z -> {0,...,9}). And we can see from this case, the equivalence classes are not even singletons.