Difference of closures is subset of closure of difference

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rasalhague
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    closure Difference
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical statement that the difference of closures is a subset of the closure of the difference, specifically examining the expression \(\overline{A}\setminus\overline{B} \subseteq \overline{A\setminus B}\). Participants explore this concept through various cases and manipulations, seeking to prove or understand the validity of the statement.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in proving the statement and outlines the definitions of the terms involved, indicating a need for hints.
  • Another participant suggests that the case where \(A \cap B = \varnothing\) is trivial and provides reasoning to support this claim, discussing the implications for elements in \(A\) and \(B\).
  • A third participant builds on the previous points, confirming the trivial case and attempting to generalize the argument by breaking down the sets involved and their closures.
  • One participant questions the clarity of a previous statement regarding the assumption that an element is not in \(B\) bar, indicating a potential misunderstanding.
  • A later reply clarifies the reasoning behind the choice of \(x\) being in \(A\) bar but not in \(B\), emphasizing the arbitrariness of \(x\) in the argument.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the general case of the statement. While there is agreement on the trivial case, the broader implications and proofs remain contested and unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the sets \(A\) and \(B\) and their intersections, which may affect the validity of the arguments presented. The manipulation of closures and set differences introduces complexity that is not fully resolved in the conversation.

Rasalhague
Messages
1,383
Reaction score
2
I can't find the source of this statement now, but I've been trying to prove that

[tex]\overline{A}\setminus\overline{B} \subseteq \overline{A\setminus B}.[/tex]

Now [itex]x\in\overline{A}\setminus\overline{B}[/itex] means x is in every closed superset of A but there exists a closed superset of B that doesn't contain x, whereas [itex]x\in \overline{A\setminus B}[/itex] means x is in every closed set that contains every point of A that's not also in B.

I've tried various manipulations involving equivalent definitions of closure, but have yet to find any obvious way to proceed. Any hints?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The particular case [itex]A\cap B = \varnothing[/itex] is trivial to prove. If x in A but not in B, then it's in A bar and might be in B bar. Let's assume it's not in B bar too, because the LHS would be then the empty set. So if x is in A bar and not in B bar, then x may be in A or not. If it's in A and not in B bar, then x is not in B, too, so that x would be in A and not in B, hence it would automatically be in (A minus B) bar. The only issue is that x is not in A, but is in A bar. So this x cannot be in B bar, hence cannot be in B, thus cannot be in A minus B but it should be in the closure of A minus B, since the closure of A minus B contains the elements of A bar which are not in B (as was our x).
 
Last edited:
Okay, thanks Dexter! Special case: If [itex]A\cap B = \varnothing[/itex], then [itex]A\setminus B = A[/itex] so [itex]\overline{A\setminus B} = \overline{A}[/itex], and [itex]\overline{A}\setminus\overline{B}\subseteq \overline{A}[/itex], so [itex]\overline{A}\setminus\overline{B}\subseteq \overline{A\setminus B}[/itex].

General case: [itex]A = (A\setminus B)\cup (A\cap B)[/itex] so [itex]\overline{A} = (\overline{A\setminus B})\cup (\overline{A\cap B})[/itex].

[tex]\overline{A}\setminus\overline{B}[/tex]

[tex]=((\overline{A\setminus B})\cup (\overline{A\cap B}))\setminus ((\overline{B\setminus A})\cup (\overline{A\cap B}))[/tex]

[tex]=(((\overline{A\setminus B})\cup (\overline{A\cap B}))\setminus (\overline{B\setminus A}))\cap (((\overline{A\setminus B})\cup (\overline{A\cap B})) \setminus(\overline{A\cap B}))[/tex]

[tex]=(\overline{A}\setminus (\overline{B\setminus A}))\cap(\overline{A\setminus B})[/tex]

[tex]\subseteq \overline{A\setminus B}. \enspace \blacksquare[/tex]
 
dextercioby said:
Let's assume it's not in B bar too, because the LHS would be then the empty set.

I didn't follow your meaning here.
 
The x was chosen to be in A bar but not in B so it could have been in B bar thus the LHS would have been the empty set, due to the arbitrariness of x.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K