Simple Set Theory Proofs to Proving Set Identities - Homework Help

In summary: What you showed in the example is that ##A - B \cup B \ne A## which is what you were trying to show. But you have to show it for any ##A## and ##B##. So you have to start with arbitrary ##A## and ##B## and use logic to show that ##A - B \cup B \ne A##. ********************3. If x \in (A-B)\cap C then x\in (A-B) AND x\in C, since x \in (A-B), x\notin B by the definition of subtraction of sets. Therefore x\in A\cap C and
  • #1
B3NR4Y
Gold Member
170
8

Homework Statement


1. Prove that if [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex] and [itex] A \cup B = A [/itex], then [itex] A = B [/itex]
2. Show that in general [itex] (A-B) \cup B \neq A [/itex]
3. Prove that [itex](A-B) \cap C = (A \cap C) - (B \cap C)[/itex]
4. Prove that [itex] \cup_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} - \cup_{\alpha} B_{\alpha} \subset \cup_{\alpha} (A_{\alpha} - B_{\alpha})[/itex]

Homework Equations


None that I can think of.

The Attempt at a Solution


1. For the first one, it seems pretty clear to me going by the logic of the operations [itex] \cap [/itex] and [itex] \cup [/itex], because [itex] A \cup B [/itex] is both the sets joined, and if that equals A, B must be the empty set or A. The second part says [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex], the intersection of two sets is only what the two sets have in common, therefore B must be equivalent to A because in the previous part we found [itex] B=A [/itex] or [itex] B = \emptyset [/itex] and it cannot be the empty set because the empty set intersected with any set is the empty set. I came to the correct conclusion but I don't think my logic is sound.

2. I can show by an example, if [itex] A = {1, 2, 3} [/itex] and [itex] B = {5, 6 ,7} [/itex], therefore [itex] A- B = {1 , 2, 3} [/itex] and [itex] (A-B) \cup B = {1,2,3,5,6,7} \neq A [/itex]. This is just one example and I know this doesn't prove it in general. But I'm not sure how to start.

3. If [itex] x \in (A-B)\cap C [/itex] then [itex]x\in (A-B)[/itex] AND [itex]x\in C[/itex], since [itex]x \in (A-B), x\notin B[/itex] by the definition of subtraction of sets. Therefore [itex] x\in A\cap C[/itex] and [itex] x\notin B\cap C [/itex]. Therefore x is in the subtraction of [itex]A\cap C[/itex] and [itex]B\cap C[/itex]. Which proves the identity for any arbitrary element [itex]x[/itex]... right? (the best way to end a proof is "... right?")

I am not sure where to start for 4.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I believe your logic is quite sound for question 1. Near the end to clarify the argument, I would have said ##B## cannot be the empty set because the intersection of the empty set with anything is the empty set. We know ##A## intersect ##B## is equal to ##A## and not the empty set, so it must be the case ##A = B##.

2. Your logic for question 2 is good as well. You have found a counter example; One counter example is enough to verify the claim in general.

3. Right.

4. I will think about this more after dinner.
 
  • #3
Zondrina said:
I believe your logic is quite sound for question 1. Near the end to clarify the argument, I would have said ##B## cannot be the empty set because the intersection of the empty set with anything is the empty set. We know ##A## intersect ##B## is equal to ##A## and not the empty set, so it must be the case ##A = B##.

2. Your logic for question 2 is good as well. You have found a counter example; One counter example is enough to verify the claim in general.

3. Right.

4. I will think about this more after dinner.

Okay, cool. I'm not as bad as I thought!
 
  • #4
4. Prove that: ##\cup_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} - \cup_{\alpha} B_{\alpha} \subset \cup_{\alpha} (A_{\alpha} - B_{\alpha})##.

To gain some insight, let's write:

$$\cup_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} - \cup_{\alpha} B_{\alpha} \subset \cup_{\alpha} (A_{\alpha} - B_{\alpha})$$
$$(A_1 \cup \cdots \cup A_n) - (B_1 \cup \cdots \cup B_n) \subset (A_1 - B_1) \cup \cdots \cup (A_n - B_n)$$

Can you show every element in the set on the left is contained in the set on the right? That is, ##\forall x \in (A_1 \cup \cdots \cup A_n) - (B_1 \cup \cdots \cup B_n)## can you show ##x \in (A_1 - B_1) \cup \cdots \cup (A_n - B_n)##?
 
  • #5
B3NR4Y said:

Homework Statement


1. Prove that if [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex] and [itex] A \cup B = A [/itex], then [itex] A = B [/itex]
2. Show that in general [itex] (A-B) \cup B \neq A [/itex]
3. Prove that [itex](A-B) \cap C = (A \cap C) - (B \cap C)[/itex]
4. Prove that [itex] \cup_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} - \cup_{\alpha} B_{\alpha} \subset \cup_{\alpha} (A_{\alpha} - B_{\alpha})[/itex]

Homework Equations


None that I can think of.

The Attempt at a Solution


1. For the first one, it seems pretty clear to me going by the logic of the operations [itex] \cap [/itex] and [itex] \cup [/itex], because [itex] A \cup B [/itex] is both the sets joined, and if that equals A, B must be the empty set or A. The second part says [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex], the intersection of two sets is only what the two sets have in common, therefore B must be equivalent to A because in the previous part we found [itex] B=A [/itex] or [itex] B = \emptyset [/itex] and it cannot be the empty set because the empty set intersected with any set is the empty set. I came to the correct conclusion but I don't think my logic is sound.

*********************
I think your first assertion (that if A and B joined equals A, then B = A or B = empty) is true, but unproved; just saying it does not constitute a proof.

Better, I think is an argument like the following: (i) ##A \cap B## is a subset of ##B##, and we are saying the former ##=A##, so ##A \subset B##. (ii) ##B## is a subset of ##A \cup B## and we are saying the latter ##=A##, so ##B \subset A##. Since ##A \subset B## and ##B \subset A## we have ##A = B##.

***********************

2. I can show by an example, if [itex] A = {1, 2, 3} [/itex] and [itex] B = {5, 6 ,7} [/itex], therefore [itex] A- B = {1 , 2, 3} [/itex] and [itex] (A-B) \cup B = {1,2,3,5,6,7} \neq A [/itex]. This is just one example and I know this doesn't prove it in general. But I'm not sure how to start.

**********************
I think giving a counterexample illustrates falsity of the equality and so proves very clearly that the equality is not always true. I'm not sure what the person posing the problem regards as an "in general" proof.

***********************3. If [itex] x \in (A-B)\cap C [/itex] then [itex]x\in (A-B)[/itex] AND [itex]x\in C[/itex], since [itex]x \in (A-B), x\notin B[/itex] by the definition of subtraction of sets. Therefore [itex] x\in A\cap C[/itex] and [itex] x\notin B\cap C [/itex]. Therefore x is in the subtraction of [itex]A\cap C[/itex] and [itex]B\cap C[/itex]. Which proves the identity for any arbitrary element [itex]x[/itex]... right? (the best way to end a proof is "... right?")

************************

You have proved that ##(A-B) \cap C \subset A \cap C - B \cap C##. In order to establish equality, you need to prove as well that the right-hand set is a subset of the left-hand set.

************************

I am not sure where to start for 4.
 
  • #6
B3NR4Y said:

Homework Statement


1. Prove that if [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex] and [itex] A \cup B = A [/itex], then [itex] A = B [/itex]
2. Show that in general [itex] (A-B) \cup B \neq A [/itex]
3. Prove that [itex](A-B) \cap C = (A \cap C) - (B \cap C)[/itex]
4. Prove that [itex] \cup_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} - \cup_{\alpha} B_{\alpha} \subset \cup_{\alpha} (A_{\alpha} - B_{\alpha})[/itex]

Homework Equations


None that I can think of.

The Attempt at a Solution


1. For the first one, it seems pretty clear to me going by the logic of the operations [itex] \cap [/itex] and [itex] \cup [/itex], because [itex] A \cup B [/itex] is both the sets joined, and if that equals A, B must be the empty set or A.
If A = {1, 2, 3, 4} and B = {2, 3}, then ##A \cup B = \{1,2,3,4\}=A## but ##B \ne A## and ##B \ne \emptyset##.
 
  • #7
Zondrina said:
I believe your logic is quite sound for question 1. Near the end to clarify the argument, I would have said ##B## cannot be the empty set because the intersection of the empty set with anything is the empty set. We know ##A## intersect ##B## is equal to ##A## and not the empty set, so it must be the case ##A = B##.

Sorry but this is completely wrong. ##A\cap B =A## does not imply in any way that B should be A or the empty set.

@B3NR4Y, try to think again about what ##A\cap B=A## means. First, do you see that this is equivalent to ##A\subset A\cap B## ?
 
  • #8
wabbit said:
Sorry but this is completely wrong. ##A\cap B =A## does not imply in any way that B should be A or the empty set.

@B3NR4Y, try to think again about what ##A\cap B=A## means. First, do you see that this is equivalent to ##A\subset A\cap B## ?

I guess you mean that ##A\cap B=A## is equivalent to ##A\subset B##
 
  • #9
PeroK said:
I guess you mean that ##A\cap B=A## is equivalent to ##A\subset B##
No, I meant exactly what I said. I was trying to get OP think by himself by only spelling out a minimal step.
 
  • #10
I would try to be much more specific. To prove "A= B" you need to prove "A is a subset of B" and "B is a subset of A".

To prove "A is a subset of B" start with "If x is an element of A" and use the properties of both A and B to conclude "x is an element of B".

To prove " if [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex] and [itex] A \cup B = A [/itex], then [itex] A = B [/itex]"
start, "if x is an element of A, then, because [itex]A \cap B= A[/itex] x is an element of B. Therefore A is a subset of B.
if y is an element of B then [itex]A\cup B= A[/itex], y is an element of A. Therefore B is a subset of A. Therefore A= B."
 
  • #11
Okay so for 3, [itex]x\in (A\cap C) - (B\cap C) [/itex], which implies [itex]x\in A \cap C[/itex] but [itex]x\notin B\cap C[/itex] and from that it follows [itex]x \in A,C[/itex] and [itex]x\notin B[/itex], therefore [itex]\forall x\in (A\cap C) - (B\cap C), \, \, x\in (A-B)\cap C[/itex] which proves [itex](A\cap C) - (B\cap C)\subset (A-B)\cap C[/itex] and I've already proven that the converse is true, so this completes the proof?

HallsofIvy said:
I would try to be much more specific. To prove "A= B" you need to prove "A is a subset of B" and "B is a subset of A".

To prove "A is a subset of B" start with "If x is an element of A" and use the properties of both A and B to conclude "x is an element of B".

To prove " if [itex] A \cap B = A [/itex] and [itex] A \cup B = A [/itex], then [itex] A = B [/itex]"
start, "if x is an element of A, then, because [itex]A \cap B= A[/itex] x is an element of B. Therefore A is a subset of B.
if y is an element of B then [itex]A\cup B= A[/itex], y is an element of A. Therefore B is a subset of A. Therefore A= B."

Okay I think I understand it better now, to prove two things are equivalent I need to prove the are subsets of each other, and for problems like 4, I only need to prove that any arbitrary "x" in the first part is also in the second part.

I am working from "Introductory Real Analysis" by Kolmogorov and Fomin.
 

What is Simple Set Theory?

Simple Set Theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with the study of sets, which are collections of objects, called elements, and the relationships between these sets.

What are the basic concepts in Simple Set Theory?

The basic concepts in Simple Set Theory include sets, elements, subsets, intersections, unions, and complements. Sets are collections of objects or elements, subsets are sets that contain only a portion of the elements in the original set, and intersections and unions are operations that combine sets to create a new set. Complements are sets that contain all elements not included in a given set.

What is a Simple Set Theory proof?

A Simple Set Theory proof is a logical argument that uses the basic concepts and properties of sets to show that a statement is true or false. This involves using definitions, axioms, and previously proven theorems to build a logical chain of reasoning.

What is the difference between an axiom and a theorem in Simple Set Theory?

An axiom is a statement that is accepted as true without needing to be proven, while a theorem is a statement that can be proven using axioms, definitions, and previously proven theorems.

What are some common strategies for proving statements in Simple Set Theory?

Some common strategies for proving statements in Simple Set Theory include using set identities and properties, using Venn diagrams to visualize relationships between sets, and using proof by contradiction or proof by induction.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
967
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
952
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
516
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top