Constructing Proofs in Mathematics: Where do I Begin?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Repetit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematics Proofs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the challenges of constructing mathematical proofs, particularly in the context of abstract algebra, set theory, and group theory. Participants explore foundational concepts of set equality and methods for proving basic set identities, such as the commutativity of union and the distributive property of intersection over union.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding how to construct proofs, particularly for intuitively clear statements like the equality of unions and intersections of sets.
  • Another participant suggests starting with the proof of set equality by demonstrating that one set is a subset of the other, recommending the use of Venn diagrams for visualization.
  • A third participant references the Axiom of Extensionality as a foundational principle for proving set equality, indicating that this axiom is crucial for understanding equality in set theory.
  • A participant inquires about the specific definition of set equality provided in the original poster's book, indicating that definitions may vary.
  • The original poster clarifies that their book defines set equality in terms of mutual subset relationships.
  • Further elaboration is provided on how to prove subset relationships, emphasizing the need to consider cases based on the definitions of union and intersection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the method of proving set equality through subset relationships, but there is no consensus on the best approach to begin constructing proofs, as different strategies are suggested.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of definitions in set theory and the varying approaches to proof construction, which may depend on individual understanding and the specific context of the problems being addressed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying abstract algebra, set theory, and group theory, particularly those seeking guidance on proof construction and foundational concepts in mathematics.

Repetit
Messages
128
Reaction score
2
Hey
Im trying to study abstract algebra, set theory and group theory, on my own. I have trouble understanding how to construct mathematical proofs though. Some of the things the excercises tells me to prove, seems so intuitively clear and obvious that I don't know what's left to prove. For example, prove that

[tex] A\cup B = B\cup A[/tex]

where A and B are two sets, or

[tex] A\cap(B\cup C)=(A\cap B)\cup (A\cap C)[/tex]

I have no idea how to start. Can someone give me a hint on these? And maybe a hint on general proof making in mathematics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, for starters, when you are trying to prove that the the union of A and B is equal to the union of B and A it is necessary to show that the union of A and B is contained in the union of B and A. Then you need to prove the converse. When I do proofs of this sort, I start by drawing some pretty Venn diagrams. It helps me visualize what I am trying to prove.
 
The first axiom of elementary set-theory is the Axiom of extensionality:
S=T if and only if ([itex]x \in S[/itex] if and only if [itex]x \in T[/itex]).​
In fact, this is the only axiom of Zermelo set theory that says anything about equality. So, if you want to prove two sets are equal, essentially the only method available is to apply this axiom.

Once you learn more theorems (such as the two theorems you posted), you will learn more ways to prove sets are equal.
 
Your book probably defines equality of sets. That definition may or may not be the same as the one Hurkyl gave.

What's the definition given?
 
Thanks for the answers.

I think the definition the book gives of equality between sets, is that for two sets A and B to be equal, A must be a subset of B and B must be a subset of A.
 
Yes, that's exactly what Hurkyl gave.

And to prove "A is a subset of B" you start "let x be a member of A" and then, using the fact that x satisfies whatever the definition of A is, show that it must also satisfy the definition of B and so "x is a member of B".

Here, since you are asked to prove [itex]A\cup B = B\cup A[/itex] you need to prove that [itex]A\cup B[/itex] is a subset of [itex]B\cup A[/itex] and then prove that [itex]B\cup A[/itex] is a subset of [itex]A\cup B[/itex].

To prove that [itex]A\cup B[/itex] is a subset of [itex]B\cup A[/itex], start "let x be a member of [itex]A\cup B[/itex]. I said above "using the fact that x satisfies whatever the definition of A is". Here the set is defined as a union so we really need to use the definition of "union". x is in [itex]A\cup B[/itex] if and only if x is in A or x is in B. Since that is an "or", break this into two cases:
(i) x is in A. In that case x is in [itex]B\cup A[/itex] because ...
(ii) x is in B. In that case x is in [itex]B\cup A[/itex] because ...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K