MHB Can you find a counterexample for this set theory statement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Romono
  • Start date Start date
Romono
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
How would you disprove if z ∈ (f(X) ∩ f(Y)) then z ∈ f(X ∩ Y)? (Where f: A -> B, if X, Y ⊆ A.) I'm just not sure how to approach this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Romono said:
How would you disprove if z ∈ (f(X) ∩ f(Y)) then z ∈ f(X ∩ Y)? (Where f: A -> B, if X, Y ⊆ A.) I'm just now sure how to approach this.

Hi again Romono,

When facing questions like these, try starting with a function that has a finite domain and codomain. In this question for example, you can consider the function $f : \{1, 2\} \to \{1, 2\}$ given by $f(1) = 1$ and $f(2) = 1$. Let $X = \{1\}$ and $Y = \{2\}$. Then $X \cap Y = \emptyset$, so $f(X\cap Y) = \emptyset$. On the other hand, since $f(X) = \{1\}$ and $f(Y) = \{1\}$, $f(X) \cap f(Y) = \{1\}$. So we have $1 \in f(X) \cap f(Y)$, but $1\notin f(X \cap Y)$. Can you find another example?
 
In general an easy way to come up with a counterexample here is to exploit the fact that the image of the empty set under any function $f$ is empty. Hence it suffices to find a function $f$ and two disjoint $X$ and $Y$ such that $f(X) \cap f(Y)$ is non-empty, and you are done. The constant function is probably the simplest example.​
 
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
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top