Can AxB be equal to the empty set if either A or B is empty?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Cartesian products, specifically whether the product of two sets A and B can be equal to the empty set if either A or B is empty.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore proof by contradiction, questioning the implications of assuming A or B is empty while considering the definition of the Cartesian product.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, raising questions about the definitions involved and the logical implications of their assumptions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the structure of the proof and the nature of contradictions arising from the assumptions made.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on the definitions of sets and Cartesian products, with participants noting the importance of the existence of elements in A and B when discussing the product.

kathrynag
Messages
595
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I just need to decide how to show this by contradiction.
If either A or B is the empty set then AxB=[tex]\oslash[/tex].



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Here is how I started:
Assume either A or B is the empty set and AxB[tex]\neq[/tex][tex]\oslash[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Reasonable start. What would [tex]A \times B \ne \emptyset[/tex] mean?
 
Is that the correct way to do a proof by contradiciton?
AxB is defined as the set consisting of all ordered pairs (x,y) in which x is an element of A and y is an element of B. So, x and y exist?
 
Close: if you assume [tex]A \times B \ne \emptyset[/tex], there must be at least
one element [tex](a,b) \in A \times B[/tex]. If you think about the definition of cartesian products, this will lead to a contradiction - about what? (Hint: what did you assume about [tex]A \text{ and } B[/tex]?)
 
Ok here's my idea for the proof.
Let A = null set and B be arbitrary. Then AxB= null set because of the definition of AxB. But there is no x which is an element of A. Therefore AxB=null set. Thus, contradiciton.
 
No - you can't assume [tex]A \times B = \emptyset[/tex] and try to proceed with a proof by contradiction.

Assume [tex]A= \emptyset[/tex] ([tex]B[/tex] may or may not be empty: that is unimiportant).

If [tex]A \times B \ne \emptyset[/tex], then (by definition of the Cartesian Product and non-empty set)
you can find an element of the product, say [tex](a,b) \in A \times B[/tex].

This means [tex]b \in B[/tex]. From where do you get the object [tex]a[/tex]?
Answering the second question gives the contradiction.
 
a is an element of A.
Oh, but then that mean A is nonempt and this a contradicition?
 
"a is an element of A.
Oh, but then that mean A is nonempt and this a contradicition?"

:smile: - yup - it contradicts [tex]A = \emptyset[/tex]
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K