Can A or B be finite if A cross B is not the empty set?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the question of whether sets A or B can be finite if their Cartesian product A cross B is not empty. Participants argue that the statement cannot be proven true universally, citing counterexamples like the Cartesian product of real numbers, which is not finite. Some express confusion over the question's phrasing, suggesting it may have been misinterpreted. Others emphasize that proving a universal statement requires a valid counterexample to demonstrate its falsehood. The consensus leans towards the idea that there isn't enough information to conclude definitively about the finiteness of A or B based solely on the non-empty product.
physicsuser
Messages
82
Reaction score
1
sets A and B. A cross B not equals the empty set. Prove that A or B is finite.

I think that you can't... don't ask me for my work because I have none.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
physicsuser said:
I think that you can't

I agree.

The regular x,y coordinate system is a cross product of real numbers. Each ordered pair is an element of the cross product and it is not the empty set and yet set A = set B and set A is not finite.
 
If anyone thinks that it can be proved, then just say that it can be and give me a hint in the right direction please.

Thanks for peeking in.
 
physicsuser said:
If anyone thinks that it can be proved, then just say that it can be and give me a hint in the right direction please.

Thanks for peeking in.

I thought I just gave you a counter example. Your statement is basically a universally quantified statement for sets, unless I am reading it wrong, and so just a single counter example is sufficient to prove that it is not true. You cannot prove something is true if it is not true. I am not a expert on set theory but in this case it seems pretty straight foreword, no?

Best of luck...
 
Townsend said:
I thought I just gave you a counter example. Your statement is basically a universally quantified statement for sets, unless I am reading it wrong, and so just a single counter example is sufficient to prove that it is not true. You cannot prove something is true if it is not true. I am not a expert on set theory but in this case it seems pretty straight foreword, no?

Best of luck...

Sorry, but I am a total noob with sets. I see it as, if they ask you to prove something then it must be true; atleast it was true for all the other question.

As for this question I think that there is not enough info to conclude anything about A or B besides that none of them is an empty set. :confused: I've reread the set section and there is nothing about what makes a set finite(I do know what a finite set is).
 
physicsuser said:
Sorry, but I am a total noob with sets. I see it as, if they ask you to prove something then it must be true; atleast it was true for all the other question.

As for this question I think that there is not enough info to conclude anything about A or B besides that none of them is an empty set. :confused: I've reread the set section and there is nothing about what makes a set finite(I do know what a finite set is).

If the question said

A cross B is not the empty set, prove that there exist at least one case where set A or set B is finite, then you could but prove there is at least one case by showing one example. No problem

A={x,y} and B={r,s}

So A cross B is just

{(x,r),(x,s),(y,r),(y,s)}

QED.

But your question asked in us to prove this is true for all sets A and B. How can you prove something that is not true?

I think you must have the question wrong because it really does not make much sense. I bet it asked to prove that if A or B is finite then A cross B is finite. Maybe you could look at the question one more time and make sure you got it right.

Best of luck
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top