Question about proof of associative law for sets

In summary, the conversation discusses the exercise of proving the associative law for sets in calculus. The participants question if a given proof is valid and express the difficulty of proving such concepts that are taken for granted in everyday life. A formal proof is provided that shows the equivalence of (A U B) U C and A U (B U C).
  • #1
pamparana
128
0
Hello,

Trying to go through Tom Apostle text on Calculus. There is an exercise about proving the associative law for sets:

So, (A U B) U C = A U (B U C)

So, if we assume x to be an element in set in left hand side, than we can say x belongs at least to either A, B or C which in turn means that x is also an element in set in right hand side and then we can say that the LHS and RHS are subsets of each other...

Is this a valid proof? I am never sure with these. It is really tricky to prove such ideas that we take for granted in every day life!

Anyway, I would be really grateful for any help you can give this old man.

/Luca
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi pamparana,

What it comes down to is that "or" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction" for
((p or q) or r)
and
(p or (q or r))
are the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
pamparana said:
Hello,

Trying to go through Tom Apostle text on Calculus. There is an exercise about proving the associative law for sets:

So, (A U B) U C = A U (B U C)

So, if we assume x to be an element in set in left hand side, than we can say x belongs at least to either A, B or C which in turn means that x is also an element in set in right hand side and then we can say that the LHS and RHS are subsets of each other...

Is this a valid proof? I am never sure with these. It is really tricky to prove such ideas that we take for granted in every day life!

Anyway, I would be really grateful for any help you can give this old man.

/Luca

You are essentially correct. (The other post is correct too, but is really a round-a-bout way to assume exactly what you want to prove). You might see the proof of your statement organized formally this way.

[tex]
\begin{align*}
x \in (A \cup B) \cup C & \leftrightarrow x \in (A \cup B) \text{ or } x \in C \\
& \leftrightarrow x \in A \text{ or } x \in B \text{ or } x \in C \\
& \leftrightarrow x \in A \text{ or } x \in (B \cup C) \\
& \leftrightarrow x \in A \cup (B \cup C)
\end{align*}
[/tex]

I've use [tex] \leftrightarrow [/tex] to represent the phrase "if and only if" (I couldn't get the usual double arrow to work, sorry).
Hope this helps.
 

1. What is the associative law for sets?

The associative law for sets is a fundamental property that states the way elements are grouped in a set does not affect the final outcome of a union or intersection operation. This means that the order in which set operations are performed does not change the resulting set.

2. How is the associative law proven for sets?

The associative law can be proven using mathematical induction. This involves showing that the law holds for a base case, such as two sets, and then proving that it also holds for any number of sets by using the base case and the associative property of binary operations.

3. Why is the associative law important in set theory?

The associative law is important because it allows for simpler and more efficient calculations when working with sets. It also helps to establish the validity of other properties and theorems in set theory.

4. Can the associative law be applied to other mathematical operations?

Yes, the associative law is a general property that can be applied to any binary operation, not just set operations. This includes operations in algebra, such as addition and multiplication.

5. Are there any exceptions to the associative law for sets?

No, the associative law holds for all sets and set operations. It is a fundamental property that is true for all sets, regardless of their elements or size.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
746
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
725
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
13
Views
958
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Back
Top