Greetings. I have been studying David Poole's Linear Algebra textbook and I discovered in the Appendix that if it can be shown that if the set A is a sub-set of B and B is a sub-set of A, then the set A is exactly the same as the set B. And this all seems intuitively plausible, but for the life of me I couldn't prove it. No proof was adduced in the textbook, but I assume such a proof exists.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Is it simply an axiom or is it derived from something else?

I tried to take it along these lines: Some of the elements of B form the entirety of the elements of A. And the some of the elements of B form the entirety of the elements of B.

I even tried to pictorialize it with an ad hoc variation of the Venn diagram, where the bubble representing B curled around and entered A in a sort of two-dimensional Klein bottle. No help here either.

Any suggestions?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# (a C b) and (b C a) implies a=b?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**