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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Romono
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
To disprove the statement that if z ∈ (f(X) ∩ f(Y)) then z ∈ f(X ∩ Y), one can use a specific function with a finite domain and codomain. An example is the function f: {1, 2} → {1, 2} where f(1) = 1 and f(2) = 1, with sets X = {1} and Y = {2}. In this case, f(X ∩ Y) results in an empty set, while f(X) ∩ f(Y) contains the element 1, demonstrating the contradiction. This illustrates that finding disjoint sets X and Y with a non-empty intersection in their images can effectively serve as a counterexample. The constant function is a straightforward approach to generate such examples.
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.​
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
952
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K