Analysis: proving inverses involving sets

In summary, f⁻¹(A union B) = f⁻¹(A) union f⁻¹(B) and f⁻¹(A intersetion B) = f⁻¹(A) intersection f⁻¹(B).
  • #1
vikkisut88
34
0
Let f: X → Y and A is a subset of Y and B is a subset of Y. Prove that:

a) f⁻¹(A union B) = f⁻¹(A) union f⁻¹(B)
b) f⁻¹(A intersetion B) = f⁻¹(A) intersection f⁻¹(B).

I know that f⁻¹(A) = {x ε X : f(x) ε A}
and so f⁻¹(B) {x ε X : f(x) ε B}

but after that I really don't understand how to prove this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
vikkisut88 said:
Let f: X → Y and A is a subset of Y and B is a subset of Y. Prove that:

a) f⁻¹(A union B) = f⁻¹(A) union f⁻¹(B)
b) f⁻¹(A intersetion B) = f⁻¹(A) intersection f⁻¹(B).

I know that f⁻¹(A) = {x ε X : f(x) ε A}
and so f⁻¹(B) {x ε X : f(x) ε B}

but after that I really don't understand how to prove this.
Any time you are asked to prove X= Y for sets X and Y you do two things:
Prove that X is a subset of Y and then that Y is a subset of X.

To prove X is a subset of Y, you start "if x is a member of X" and then use the definitions of X and Y to show that x must be a member of Y.

For example, here, if x is in f-1(A union B) then f(x) is in A union B. That means either f(x) is in A or f(x) is in B. If f(x) is in A, then x is in f-1(A). If f(x) is in B, then x is in f-1(B). In either case, x is in f-1(A) union f-1(B). That proves that f-1(A union B) is a subset of f-1(A) union f-1(B). Now do it the other way: if x is in f-1(A) union f-1(B), then ...
 
  • #3
Welcome to PF, vikkisut.
It's really just a matter of plugging in the definitions:
[tex]f^{-1}(A \cup B) = \{ x \in X: f(x) \in A \cup B \} \stackrel{\star}{=} \{ x \in X: f(x) \in A \text{ or } f(x) \in B \} \stackrel{\star}{=} \{ x \in X: f(x) \in A \} \cup \{ x \in X: f(x) \in B \} = f^{-1}(A) \cup f^{-1}(B)[/tex]
That is just a partial proof though; I have marked two of the identities with a [itex]\star[/itex], I suggest you try to prove these by a standard argument (let x be in one of them and show that it is in the other and vice versa).
 
  • #4
CompuChip said:
That is just a partial proof though; I have marked two of the identities with a [itex]\star[/itex], I suggest you try to prove these by a standard argument (let x be in one of them and show that it is in the other and vice versa).

Sorry I don't quite understand what you're suggesting me to do there? Let x be in what exactly? Be part part of A, and then show that it is in B?
 
  • #5
No, let it be in
[tex]\{ x \in X: f(x) \in A \cup B \}[/tex]
and prove it to be in
[tex]\{ x \in X: f(x) \in A \} \cup \{ x \in X: f(x) \in B \}[/tex]
Also see HallsOfIvy's post, for more explanation.

[edit]You should also prove the converse of course, letting it be in the latter and showing that it is in the former.[/edit]

[edit]1500 posts by the way, almost went unnoticed :tongue:[/edit]
 
  • #6
oh okay, thank you very much :)
 

1. What is an inverse set?

An inverse set is a set of elements that have a specific relationship with another set. Inverse sets can also be thought of as a reflection or opposite of a set. For example, if a set contains all even numbers, its inverse set would contain all odd numbers.

2. How do you prove that two sets are inverses of each other?

To prove that two sets are inverses of each other, you must show that every element in one set is also present in the other set and vice versa. This can be done by using the concept of set builder notation and logical reasoning to show that the elements in one set satisfy the conditions of the other set, and vice versa.

3. Can an inverse set be empty?

Yes, an inverse set can be empty. This means that there are no elements that satisfy the conditions of the original set.

4. Are inverse sets always equal in size?

No, inverse sets are not always equal in size. In fact, one set can have an infinite number of elements while its inverse set may have a finite number of elements. This is because the inverse set only contains elements that satisfy the conditions of the original set, while the original set can contain additional elements.

5. What is the importance of proving inverses involving sets?

Proving inverses involving sets is important because it helps to establish a clear and logical relationship between two sets. It also allows for the identification of patterns and properties within sets, which can be useful in various fields such as mathematics, computer science, and physics.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
501
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
543
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
865
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
216
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
461
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
608
Back
Top