Can you check this proof please: sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter workerant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Sets
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving a set theory statement regarding the containment of intersections of sets. Specifically, it asserts that if set C is contained in set A and set D is contained in set B, then the intersection of C and D is contained in the intersection of A and B.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of a proof by contradiction approach and whether it is appropriate for this problem. There are attempts to clarify the logical flow of the proof and the necessity of connecting the sets involved.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide feedback on the proof structure, suggesting that a direct approach may be clearer than a proof by contradiction. There is acknowledgment of the need to explicitly state connections between the sets in the argument.

Contextual Notes

One participant introduces a counterexample using real numbers to challenge the initial assumptions of the proof, prompting further discussion on the validity of the original statement.

workerant
Messages
40
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A,B,C,D are sets.

Prove that if C is contained in A and D is contained in B, then C∩ D is contained in A∩ B.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Let x be any element.

Then There exists (x that belongs to C∩D) and (x does not belong to A∩ B)

So x belongs to C and x belongs to D

If x belongs to C, since C is contained in A, then x belongs to A.
If x belongs to D, since D is contained in B, then x belongs to B.
So x belongs to A intersect B, a contradiction.

Then the original statement is true.

Is it okay?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
workerant said:

The Attempt at a Solution


Let x be any element.

Then There exists (x that belongs to C∩D) and (x does not belong to A∩ B)

That needn't be the case at all. Let A=B=C=D=\mathbb{R}.
 
Well, then can I say to assume that because I am trying to do a proof by contradiction.

I'm confused by what you are saying...I should say A=B=C=D=R and then what? I'm not sure I follow...is the rest okay?
 
Don't do proof by contradiction, it just muddles things. Everything else was fine.

So x belongs to C and x belongs to D

If x belongs to C, since C is contained in A, then x belongs to A.
If x belongs to D, since D is contained in B, then x belongs to B.
So x belongs to A intersect B,

Hence all x in C intersect D are in A intersect B, and C intersect D is a subset of A intersect B. It's much cleaner that way
 
workerant said:
Well, then can I say to assume that because I am trying to do a proof by contradiction.

I'm confused by what you are saying...I should say A=B=C=D=R and then what?

I was giving you a counterexample to demonstrate that your opening statement is false. If you let all 4 sets equal the real numbers then it is not the case that that there exists an x\in C\cap D with x\notin A\cap B.
 
workerant said:
If x belongs to C, since C is contained in A, then x belongs to A.
If x belongs to D, since D is contained in B, then x belongs to B.
So x belongs to A intersect B, a contradiction.

I agree with Office Shredder that you should forget about proof by contradiction here, but I don't agree that this all by itself is fine. You should include a line that says that x\in C\cap D. After all, you're supposed to show that (C \cap D) \subset (A \cap B). Those two sets should be connected by your argument.
 
thanks guys...I actually I did include such a line in my formal write-up so thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K