Register to reply

Unions and Intersections

by Swapnil
Tags: intersections, unions
Share this thread:
Swapnil
#1
Feb10-07, 07:03 PM
P: 460
Given set A and B, the union is defined as

[tex]A\cup B := \{x | x \; \epsilon A \lor x \; \epsilon \; B \}[/tex]

But how is [tex]\lor[/tex] defined?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Experts defend operational earthquake forecasting, counter critiques
EU urged to convert TV frequencies to mobile broadband
Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100
DeadWolfe
#2
Feb10-07, 07:10 PM
P: 461
It's defined as or. As in A v B is the condition that A holds, or B holds, or both hold.
Swapnil
#3
Feb10-07, 07:55 PM
P: 460
But isn't that circular definition? You are defining A OR B as true when either A is true OR B is true OR both are true!

verty
#4
Feb10-07, 07:59 PM
HW Helper
P: 1,808
Unions and Intersections

Perhaps this is better. It is a binary function that maps 2-tuples of truth values to a truth value which is false for (0,0) and true otherwise.

Oh, perhaps this is circular.
radou
#5
Feb10-07, 08:39 PM
HW Helper
radou's Avatar
P: 3,220
A | B | A V B
-----------------------------------
T | T | T
T | F | T
F | T | T
F | F | F
Swapnil
#6
Feb10-07, 08:50 PM
P: 460
Quote Quote by verty View Post
Perhaps this is better. It is a binary function that maps 2-tuples of truth values to a truth value which is false for (0,0) and true otherwise.

Oh, perhaps this is circular.
I think this is circular too.

Correct me if I am wrong. You define OR as a function [tex]f: (x,y) \to z[/tex] where [tex] x,y,z \; \epsilon \; \{0, 1\}[/tex] satisfying the following property:

[tex](x,y) = (0,0) \Rightarrow z = 0 \land (x,y) \neq (0,0) \Rightarrow z = 1 [/tex]

I guess the circularity of this definition depends on how you define [tex]\land[/tex] and [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]...
radou
#7
Feb10-07, 08:53 PM
HW Helper
radou's Avatar
P: 3,220
What exactly is circular in the definition?
cristo
#8
Feb10-07, 09:02 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,317
Quote Quote by Swapnil View Post
Given set A and B, the union is defined as

[tex]A\cup B := \{x | x \; \epsilon A \lor x \; \epsilon \; B \}[/tex]

But how is [tex]\lor[/tex] defined?
Quote Quote by Swapnil View Post
But isn't that circular definition? You are defining A OR B as true when either A is true OR B is true OR both are true!
This is not a definition of "A or B"; it is a definition of the union of the sets A and B. This is not a circular definition.
Swapnil
#9
Feb10-07, 09:27 PM
P: 460
Quote Quote by radou View Post
What exactly is circular in the definition?
Well... nothing yet. Until you start defining [tex]\land[/tex] and [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex]

Notice that
[tex] p \Rightarrow q : = \lnot p \lor q[/tex]
Swapnil
#10
Feb10-07, 09:29 PM
P: 460
Quote Quote by cristo View Post
This is not a definition of "A or B"; it is a definition of the union of the sets A and B. This is not a circular definition.
I was actually talking about the definition of OR as mentioned by DeadWolfe.
cristo
#11
Feb10-07, 09:36 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,317
Quote Quote by Swapnil View Post
I was actually talking about the definition of OR as mentioned by DeadWolfe.
Sorry, I read the post incorrectly
matt grime
#12
Feb11-07, 03:02 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
There is nothing at all 'circular' in any of these definitions. It would have been better written as

(x in A)v(x in B)

to avoid confusion (his A and B are not your A and B). What on earth do you think the definition of logical OR is if not what was given? V is just another symbol for logical OR.

Do'nt confuse sets with conditions that define the sets: the defining condition for a union of two sets is the disjunction (OR) of the individual conditions.
DeadWolfe
#13
Feb11-07, 03:06 PM
P: 461
How on earth is my definition is circular. I said that v is defined to be or. Not that or is defined to be or. Pay attention.
Swapnil
#14
Feb11-07, 05:48 PM
P: 460
Quote Quote by DeadWolfe View Post
How on earth is my definition is circular. I said that v is defined to be or. Not that or is defined to be or. Pay attention.
But they are the same thing! Call it 'V', or 'OR' or 'or.' It is still a logical OR.

Anyways, say that you do define v to be or. The how do you then define or?
Swapnil
#15
Feb11-07, 05:52 PM
P: 460
Quote Quote by matt grime View Post
What on earth do you think the definition of logical OR is if not what was given? V is just another symbol for logical OR.

Do'nt confuse sets with conditions that define the sets: the defining condition for a union of two sets is the disjunction (OR) of the individual conditions.
I know that. I am just asking how the disjunction (OR) is defined. (I guess I should have never brought sets in my question. And my title was a big mistake too. ).
matt grime
#16
Feb11-07, 05:59 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396
Look at the (expletive deleted) truth table. That is how OR and DISJUNCTION are defined (they are after all just different names for the same thing).


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Probability of unions/intersections Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 4
How Bush helped to legalize gay unions in Oregon General Discussion 1
Filling in the blanks proof, having some issues! Set Theory Unions/Subsets Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Labor Unions and Capitalism? Current Events 69
Functions, intersections, and unions Introductory Physics Homework 3