Can Disjoint Sets Help Prove Subset Relations in Set Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eddiep1993
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exercise
eddiep1993
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am currently reading vellemans how to prove it for the purpose of being able to construct a proof on my own. I would like to carry on this knowledge to also help me out with spivaks calculus So the problem is:

Prove that if a and b\c are disjoint, then a\bigcapb\subseteqc.
1.goal: a\bigcapb\c=∅ → a\bigcapb\subseteqc

2. Givens:a\bigcapb\c=∅ Goal:a\bigcapb\subseteqc

3.Givens:a\bigcapb\c=∅ x\ina x\inb Goal: x\inc
This is as far as I got. I haveE no idea where to go from here and I feel the solution is starting right at me. I think it might have something to do with the fact that a and b\c are disjoints. This might be in the wrong section but I don't no where else to put it
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hi eddiep1993! welcome to pf! :smile:
eddiep1993 said:
… I think it might have something to do with the fact that a and b\c are disjoints.

that's right :smile:

if x ε a, then x not ε in b/c …

carry on from there :wink:
 
eddiep1993 said:
3.Givens:a\bigcapb\c=∅ x\ina x\inb Goal: x\inc
Maybe: a\bigcapb\c=∅ x\ina x\inb x\notinc Goal: contradiction
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top