Simplify Sets: U={1-14} and C={1-5}. Find C union complement of U in easy steps!

  • Thread starter Thread starter hikki_pop
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
AI Thread Summary
To find C union U' where U is the universal set {1-14} and C is the subset {1-5}, the answer depends on the universe of discourse. If the universe is the natural numbers, C union U' includes elements beyond 14, while if it is the integers, it includes negative numbers as well. However, if the universe of discourse is strictly U, then U' is the empty set, making C union U' equal to {1,2,3,4,5}. The discussion highlights the importance of clearly defining the universe of discourse when solving set problems. Misinterpretations of the universal set notation can lead to confusion in mathematical discussions.
hikki_pop
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
can anyone tell me the answer to this??

if
U (universal set) = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14}
C (just a simple subset of the universal set U)= {1,2,3,4,5}

then what would be the answer if:

C U U' ? (subset C union universal set complement)

thanks !

sorry for the double post! please delete this one!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't you need to also include your universe of discourse?

If your universe of discourse is the natural numbers then,...

C U U' would be {1,2,3,4,5} U {15,16,17,...}

If your universe of discourse is the integers then,...

C U U' would be {... -3,-2,-1,0} U {1,2,3,4,5} U {15,16,17,...}

For other universes of discourse it could get ugly. :surprise:

Edited to add the following possibility,...

If your universe of discourse is U then U' is the empty set so,...

C U U' would be just be {1,2,3,4,5}
 
Last edited:
Neutron star: the original post said "U (universal set) = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14}.

That is the "unverse of discourse".
 
HallsofIvy said:
Neutron star: the original post said "U (universal set) = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14}.

That is the "unverse of discourse".
That's normally what I would assume too, but I've found that different people use different notations including college professors and textbook authors. I've seen the term universal set used to refer to a specific set while the author (or professor) continues to treat the problem as though the universe of discourse is still the natural numbers.

I would agree that they are technically incorrect in doing this. But they seem to do it quite often just the same. I've actually confronted a college professor about this once and all I got in return was a lecture on the difference between a universal set and the universe of discourse.

Don't look at me. I'm with you! As far as I'm concerned professors and authors who think there is a difference are wrong. But since its an imperfect universe (no pun intended) I like to cover all my bases. :approve:
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top