Thread Closed

Question about proof of associative law for sets

 
Share Thread
Mar21-09, 03:47 PM   #1
 

Question about proof of associative law for sets


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
PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com

>> New language discovery reveals linguistic insights
>> US official: Solar plane to help ground energy use (Update)
>> Four microphones, computer algorithm enough to produce 3-D model of simple, convex room
Mar21-09, 04:04 PM   #2
 
Hi pamparana,

What it comes down to is that "or" (logical disjunction) is associative, so ((x in A or x in B) or (x in C)) is the same as (x in A or (x in B or x in C)). Either you take this for granted, or you check that that the truth tables for
((p or q) or r)
and
(p or (q or r))
are the same.
Mar21-09, 08:31 PM   #3
 
Recognitions:
Homework Helper Homework Help
Quote by pamparana View Post
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.
Thread Closed

Similar discussions for: Question about proof of associative law for sets
Thread Forum Replies
Proof involving sets. NEED HELP!!! Calculus & Beyond Homework 5
proof about operations on sets Calculus & Beyond Homework 2
Proof of CLopen sets Calculus & Beyond Homework 2
More proof on sets help Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 2