Check my proof for cartesian product (set theory)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof in set theory, specifically addressing the relationship between Cartesian products of sets when one set is a subset of another.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the structure of the proof, questioning the clarity of definitions and the phrasing used to describe elements in Cartesian products. There are attempts to refine the language and logical flow of the proof.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in refining the proof's wording and structure. Suggestions for improvement have been made, focusing on how to start the proof and clarify the relationships between elements in the sets involved.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on ensuring the proof aligns with the formal requirements of set theory, particularly regarding the definitions of subsets and Cartesian products. Some participants express uncertainty about the initial phrasing and its implications for the proof's validity.

iamsmooth
Messages
103
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that [tex]\forall[/tex] sets [tex]A, B, C[/tex], if [tex]B\subseteq C,[/tex] then [tex]A \times B \subseteq A \times C[/tex]

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


Haven't done set theory proofs in a while. Does this suffice in proving the statement?:

Let [tex]x \in B[/tex] be arbitrary. Assuming [tex]B \subseteq C[/tex] is true, we know that [tex]x \in C[/tex]. Since [tex]x \in B[/tex], we know that [tex]A \times B[/tex] will produce an ordered pair (a,x) where a is an arbitrary element of A. Since [tex]x \in C[/tex], we know that [tex]A \times C[/tex] will produce the same ordered pair (a,x).

Therefore by definition of subsets, [tex]A \times B \subseteq A \times C[/tex]

QEDThanks for your help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi iamsmooth! :smile:
iamsmooth said:
Prove that [tex]\forall[/tex] sets [tex]A, B, C[/tex], if [tex]B\subseteq C, then A \times B \subseteq A \times C[/tex]

Let [tex]x \in B[/tex] be arbitrary. Assuming [tex]B \subseteq C[/tex] is true, we know that [tex]x \in C[/tex]. Since [tex]x \in B[/tex], we know that [tex]A \times B[/tex] will produce an ordered pair (a,x) where a is an arbitrary element of A. Since [tex]x \in C[/tex], we know that [tex]A \times C[/tex] will produce the same ordered pair (a,x).

Therefore by definition of subsets, [tex]A \times B \subseteq A \times C[/tex]

mmm … messy …

and what does "[tex]A \times B[/tex] will produce an ordered pair (a,x) …" mean?

Instead, start "for any element (a,b) of A x B … " :wink:
 
Let [tex]x \in B[/tex] be arbitrary. Assuming [tex]B \subseteq C[/tex] is true, we know that [tex]x \in C[/tex].

We know that for all elements [tex](a, x) \in A \times B[/tex] where a is an arbitrary element of A, there will also exist [tex](a, x) \in A \times C[/tex] since [tex]x \in A[/tex] and [tex]x \in C[/tex].

Therefore by definition of subsets, [tex]A \times B \subseteq A \times C[/tex]

QED

Is this better?
 
Since you later say "for all elements [tex](a, x) \in A \times B[/tex]", why are you starting with "Let [tex]x \in B[/tex] be arbitrary." ?

The proposition you are required to prove starts "for any element (a,x) of A x B",

so your proof should start with the same words. :wink:
 
Assuming [tex]B \subseteq C[/tex] is true, we know that if there is any element [tex]x \in B[/tex], then [tex]x \in C[/tex].

For any element [tex](a, b) \in A \times B[/tex] where a is an arbitrary element of A and b is an arbitrary element of B, there will also exist [tex](a, b) \in A \times C[/tex] since [tex]b \in B[/tex] and [tex]b \in C[/tex] must be true (by assumption).

Therefore by definition of subsets, [tex]A \times B \subseteq A \times C[/tex]

QED

Is it just my wording that's messed up?
 
You really don't need that opening sentence;

also, "there will also exist" is rather a strange way of putting it, since it's the same element, (a,b), in both sets …

you want something more like any element of A x B is of the form (a,b) with a in A and b in B, and since B is a subset of C, b is in C, and so (a,b) is in A x C. :wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K