MHB Counting proof of the addition rule

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.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...
Back
Top