Can Simplification Prove (A I B) Subset of A using Special Notation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brad sue
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
2 replies · 2K views
brad sue
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
Hi,

with my special notation:
I- intersection

Can we prove that:
(A I B) subset of A by simplification from the rule of inference

since A I B -->A ??

If not, please can I have some suggestions?
B
 
Physics news on Phys.org
brad sue said:
Hi,

with my special notation:
I- intersection

Can we prove that:
(A I B) subset of A by simplification from the rule of inference

since A I B -->A ??

If not, please can I have some suggestions?
B
Sort of--that logical rule applies only to logical statements, not directly to sets. It says that you can conclude X from the statement X AND Y. The standard way to prove that [tex]A \cap B \subseteq A[/tex] starts by decomposing it into logical statements.
Assume [tex]x \in A \cap B[/tex]
Then [tex](x \in A) \vee (x \in B)[/tex]
You can finish it
 
0rthodontist said:
Sort of--that logical rule applies only to logical statements, not directly to sets. It says that you can conclude X from the statement X AND Y. The standard way to prove that [tex]A \cap B \subseteq A[/tex] starts by decomposing it into logical statements.
Assume [tex]x \in A \cap B[/tex]
Then [tex](x \in A) \vee (x \in B)[/tex]
You can finish it

OK I understand what to do.
Thank you