MHB Disjoint Sets R, T: Venn Diagram Visualization

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcs1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
AI Thread Summary
R consists of the factors of 24, while T includes the numbers 7, 9, and 11, making them disjoint sets. Set S is defined as empty, meaning it contains no elements. The challenge lies in visualizing these sets within a Venn diagram, particularly how to represent the empty set S alongside R and T. To illustrate, R and T would be represented as separate circles with no overlap, and S would be indicated as a space outside these circles. Understanding the placement of the empty set in relation to the other sets is crucial for accurate representation.
rcs1
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
represent below in venn diagram

R = { x|x is a factor of 24}
S= { }
T = { 7 , 9 , 11 }

i understand R and T are disjoint sets,,, my problem here sir/mam, is that how am i going to draw the set S in the Universal set with the sets R and T.

Thanks a lot
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rcs said:
represent below in venn diagram

R = { x|x is a factor of 24}
S= { }
T = { 7 , 9 , 11 }

i understand R and T are disjoint sets,,, my problem here sir/mam, is that how am i going to draw the set S in the Universal set with the sets R and T.
S=\emptyset
That question is really hard to understand what it means.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
Back
Top