Defintion of The Union Of Sets


by wubie
Tags: defintion, sets, union
wubie
#1
Jan13-04, 09:54 PM
P: n/a
Hello,

I am having trouble interpreting the definition of the union of two sets as given in Modern Abstract Algebra in Schaum's Outlines. I can see by example but I can't seem to interpret the definition. Could someone reword this for me or give me another spin on this definition? Thankyou.

Defintion as in Modern Abstract Algebra in Schaum's Outlines

Let A and B be given sets. The set of all elements which belong to A alone or to B alone or to both A and B is called the union of A and B.

I understand the example:

Let A = {1,2,3,4} and B = {2,3,5,8,10}; then A union B = {1,2,3,4,5,8,10}

And the way I interpret the union of two sets is this:

Given two sets A and B, let the union of A and B be C. Then C contains the following:

Elements common to both A and B. Elements in A and not in B. And elements in B but not in A.


But I don't get the definition as given by Schaums.

Any help is appreciated. Thanks again.
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Math modeling handbook now available
Hyperbolic homogeneous polynomials, oh my!
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
master_coda
master_coda is offline
#2
Jan13-04, 11:01 PM
P: 678
I don't really understand what the difference is between your definition and Schaums. You're both saying the same thing.
wubie
#3
Jan13-04, 11:36 PM
P: n/a
I don't know. Perhaps I am misinterpreting Schuam's definition. I don't see the equivalence between Schaum's definition and mine.

I interpret Schuams definition as follows:

The set of all elements which belong to A alone. ==
The set consisting of just the elements of A.

Meaning if the set consists of just the elements of A then B is an empty set.

A union B = A

The set of all elements which belong to B alone ==
The set consisting of just the elements of B.

Similarly if the set consists of just the elements of B then A must be an empty set.

B union A = B

The set of all elements which belong to both A and B ==
The set consisting of the elements in both A and in B.

This last part I can see.

Warr
Warr is offline
#4
Jan13-04, 11:51 PM
P: 122

Defintion of The Union Of Sets


u(AUB) = u(A) + u(B) - u(ANB) [The 'N' is intersect of A and B, in real life it looks like an upside-down U.]

The two different cases are whether A and B are discrete sets or not. If A and B do not have anything in commmon, there is no intersection, hence u(ANB) = {} = 0, the empty set.
wubie
#5
Jan14-04, 12:11 AM
P: n/a
Could you elaborate on your notation? I don't think I have seen the notation

u(AUB)

before.

Just what does the u(...) stand for?

I understand that if A and B have nothing in common that their intersection is the empty set.

I don't see the connection though.
himanshu121
himanshu121 is offline
#6
Jan14-04, 02:08 AM
himanshu121's Avatar
P: 661
Originally posted by wubie
Could you elaborate on your notation? I don't think I have seen the notation

u(AUB)

before.

Just what does the u(...) stand for?

u(AUB) represents the no. of elements in the set
wubie
#7
Jan14-04, 02:21 AM
P: n/a
Right! Thanks.

Now warr's post makes sense.
himanshu121
himanshu121 is offline
#8
Jan14-04, 02:42 AM
himanshu121's Avatar
P: 661
Originally posted by wubie
Right! Thanks.

Now warr's post makes sense.
It made sense before two, i was just giving him hints and i feel he has overlooked them
nille40
nille40 is offline
#9
Jan14-04, 06:54 AM
P: 34
Perhaps this can be of some assistance:
[tex]A \cup B = \lbrace e \mid e \in A \lor e \in B \rbrace[/tex]

The size of the union would be
[tex]|A \cup B| = |A| + |B| - |A \cap B|[/tex]

Whch means "all the elements in [tex]A[/tex] + all the elements in [tex]B[/tex] - the elements in both [tex]A[/tex] and [tex]B[/tex]".

Nille
himanshu121
himanshu121 is offline
#10
Jan14-04, 07:07 AM
himanshu121's Avatar
P: 661
You can easily see from attachment that Union means The no. of ekements in both sets without repeating the same no in both sets

u can easily see Union will be RED+BLUE-GREY this is because as i say not to repeat the common elements we subtract the Grey portion once
coz when we add RED+BLUE they common elements are added up twice so we have to delete one
Attached Thumbnails
untitled1.jpg  
phoenixthoth
phoenixthoth is offline
#11
Jan14-04, 04:14 PM
phoenixthoth's Avatar
P: 1,572
a more general union is this. let T be a collection of sets, usually at least two sets. for example, T={A,B}.

[tex]\bigcup T[/tex] is the set of elements in at least one member of T.

[tex]\bigcup \left\{ A,B\right\} =A\cup B[/tex] is the set of elements in at least one of A and B. ie, if x is in A or B (or both), then x is in the union.

if T had three sets in it, the same definition would apply: x is in the union of three sets if it is in at least one of the sets in T.
wubie
#12
Jan15-04, 11:21 AM
P: n/a
Thanks again everyone.

These many different perspectives has given me a better understanding of the def. of union of sets.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
An infinite union of closed sets? Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 31
Union and Intersection of sets Introductory Physics Homework 2
[SOLVED] Union and Intersection of sets Calculus & Beyond Homework 7
union of countable many sets Calculus 13
boundary of the union of two sets Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 1