MHB Counting proof of the addition rule

Click For Summary
In the discussion on the addition rule, it is established that for a system of pairwise disjoint subsets of a finite set A, the total number of elements in A equals the sum of the elements in each subset. Each element in A belongs to exactly one subset, ensuring it is counted once on both sides of the equation. The contrast is drawn with non-disjoint sets, where elements can be counted multiple times, necessitating a correction in the formula. This clarity reinforces the proof's validity by highlighting the simplicity of counting in disjoint scenarios. The explanation emphasizes the foundational principle of counting distinct elements without overlap.
MI5
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Let $ \left\{A_1, A_2, \cdots , A_n\right\}$ be a system of subsets of a finite set $A$ such that these subsets are pairwise disjoint and their union $A = \cup_{i=1}^{n}A_{i}$. Then

$ |A| = \sum_{i=1}^{n}|A_i|$. (1)

Proof: According to the hypothesis, each $a \in A$ belongs to exactly one of the subsets $A_{i}$, and therefore it counts exactly once on each side of equation 1.Could someone explain the bold bit (what's meant by it counts exactly once on each side of the equation) and why that counts as proof.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If $A_1$ and $A_2$ are not disjoint, then we can't say that $|A_1\cup A_2|=|A_1|+|A_2|$. The right-hand side is greater because the elements from the intersection are counted twice: they are counted both as elements of $A_1$ and as elements of $A_2$. (Therefore, the correct formula is $|A_1\cup A_2|=|A_1|+|A_2|-|A_1\cap A_2|$.)

In contrast, in the statement you wrote each element is counted exactly once in both sides of the equation. It can't happen that some $x\in A_i$ and $x\in A_j$ if $i\ne j$, so $x$ will not be counted both in $|A_i|$ and $|A_j|$.

This fact is obvious to anybody who can count: e.g., the total number of children is the number of boys plus the number of girls. The only reason it is made into a proof is to create a contrast with the case where the sets are not necessarily disjoint and where counting is more complicated.
 
Fantastic explanation. Thank you.
 
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K