Is it possible to prove that -(-A)=A using the concept of set subtraction?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamataat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the statement -(-A) = A using the concept of set subtraction and complements. Participants explore the logical steps involved in establishing this equivalence within the context of set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Kamataat proposes that proving -(-A) = A can be approached by interpreting it as S - (S - A) = A, questioning the implications of set subtraction.
  • Muzza clarifies that -A refers to the complement of A, providing a sequence of logical equivalences to demonstrate that -(-A) is indeed equal to A.
  • Kamataat questions the necessity of intermediate logical steps in the proof, suggesting that a more direct approach could suffice.
  • There is a casual acknowledgment from Muzza that participants can choose their own approach to the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of the intermediate steps in the proof, indicating a divergence in perspectives on the logical process involved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the assumptions regarding the definitions of set subtraction and complements, nor does it clarify the implications of skipping logical steps in the proof.

Kamataat
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
I need to prove that [tex]-(-A)=A[/tex]. I guess it's the same as [tex]S-(S-A)=A[/tex], where [tex]S[/tex] is the space. So is it true, that if [tex]x \in S-(S-A)[/tex] then [tex]x \notin S-A[/tex]?

- Kamataat
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I take it -A means the complement of A (with respect to some universe)? The following are equivalent (~ means "not"):

x [itex]\in[/itex] -(-A)
x [itex]\notin[/itex] -A
~(x [itex]\in[/itex] -A)
~(x [itex]\notin[/itex] A)
~(~(x [itex]\in[/itex] A))
x [itex]\in[/itex] A

That establishes the two inclusions -(-A) [itex]\subseteq[/itex] A and A [itex]\subseteq[/itex] -(-A).
 
Thanks, Muzza, I get your proof. Still, why are the NOT steps necessary? Why not this instead:

[tex]x \in -(-A)[/tex]
[tex]x \notin -A[/tex]
[tex]x \in A[/tex]?

If you go (in your post) from step #1 to step #2 directly, then why don't you go from #2 to #6 (e.g. skip #3, #4 and #5)? I mean, if from #1 follows #2, then doesn't #6 follow from #1 and #2 combined (w/o the intermediate steps)?

- Kamataat
 
*shrug* Do as you please :P
 
ok, tnx

- Kamataat
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K