Proving (A\cap B)-(A\cap C) using x\in[A\cap(B-C)]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamataat
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the set equality \( A \cap (B - C) = (A \cap B) - (A \cap C) \) within the context of set theory. Participants are exploring the logical steps necessary to demonstrate this relationship.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to verify one direction of the proof by analyzing the implications of membership in the sets involved. Other participants suggest that the proof is incomplete and need to demonstrate the reverse inclusion. Questions arise regarding the assumptions made and the implications of certain steps in the reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants actively engaging in the logical structure of the proof. Some guidance has been offered regarding the need to show both inclusions for a complete proof. The original poster acknowledges a misunderstanding and plans to continue the discussion with further attempts.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of a homework assignment, which may impose specific requirements for rigor in proofs. There is an acknowledgment of assumptions that may need to be clarified or re-evaluated as the discussion progresses.

Kamataat
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
Verify [itex]A\cap(B-C)=(A\cap B)-(A\cap C)[/itex].

This is how I did it:

From [itex]x\in[A\cap(B-C)][/itex] (lhs) we have that
1.) [itex]x\in A[/itex]
2.) [itex]x\in B[/itex]
3.) [itex]x\notin C[/itex]
From #1 and #2 we have that
4.) [itex]x\in(A\cap B)[/itex]
Now, since [itex]x\in(A\cap C)[/itex] means that [itex]x\in A[/itex] and [itex]x\in C[/itex], but we have [itex]x\notin C[/itex], it follows that
5.) [itex]x\notin(A\cap C)[/itex]
Remembering that [itex]x\in(A-B)[/itex] means that [itex]x\in A[/itex] and [itex]x\notin B[/itex] it follows from #4 and #5 that
[itex]x\in[(A\cap B)-(A\cap C)][/itex] (rhs)

Is this right?

- Kamataat
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, but it is only half of the proof. You have shown

[tex](A \cap B) - (A \cap C) \supseteq A \cap (B-C)[/tex]

To finish the proof you must also go in "reverse" and show

[tex](A \cap B) - (A \cap C) \subseteq A \cap (B-C)[/tex]
 
I see. My mistake was to assume the thing I was trying to prove... and I forgot, that [itex]A=B[/itex] iff [itex]A\subseteq B\wedge B\subseteq A[/itex].

I'll post the other half in the morning. Got to sleep now. Thanks!

- Kamataat
 
Is this it?:

From [itex]x\in[(A\cap B)-(A\cap C)][/itex] (rhs) we have
1.) [itex]x\in(A\cap B)[/itex]
2.) [itex]x\notin(A\cap C)[/itex]
From #1 it follows that
3.) [itex]x\in A[/itex] and [itex]x\in B[/itex]
From #2 and #3 it follows that
4.) [itex]x\in A[/itex] and [itex]x\notin C[/itex] (not the other way around because #3 shows that [itex]x\in A[/itex])
Now we have
5.) [itex]x\in A[/itex] and [itex]x\in B[/itex] and [itex]x\notin C[/itex]
From #5 it follows that
6.) [itex]x\in A[/itex] and [itex]x\in(B-C)[/itex] from which we get
7.) [itex]x\in[A\cap(B-C)][/itex] (lhs)

The one question I have is about #5-->#6. As far as I understand it, #5 could also result in "[itex]x\in B[/itex] and [itex]x\in(A-C)[/itex]", or could it not because of steps #3 and #4?

- Kamataat
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
852
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K