Help indexed family sets proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter IntroAnalysis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Sets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the union of the intersection of indexed families of sets, specifically Ui (Ai ∩ Bi), is a subset of the intersection of the unions, (Ui Ai) ∩ (Ui Bi). Participants emphasize the necessity of starting with an arbitrary element x from the union of the intersections, leading to the conclusion that x must belong to both Ai and Bi for some index j. This proof relies on the definitions of union and intersection in set theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory concepts, particularly unions and intersections.
  • Familiarity with indexed families of sets.
  • Knowledge of quantifiers in mathematical logic.
  • Basic proof techniques in mathematics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of unions and intersections in set theory.
  • Learn about indexed families and their applications in advanced mathematics.
  • Explore proof techniques involving quantifiers, such as direct proof and proof by contradiction.
  • Investigate the implications of set operations in topology and functional analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in formal proofs involving set theory and indexed families of sets.

IntroAnalysis
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Ai and Bi are indexed families of sets. Prove that Ui (Ai [itex]\bigcap[/itex] Bi) [itex]\subseteq[/itex] (UiAi) [itex]\bigcap[/itex] (UiBi).


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Suppose arbitrary x. Let x [itex]\in[/itex]
{x l [itex]\forall[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex]Ai[itex]\bigcap[/itex]Bi)
This means x [itex]\in[/itex]{x l [itex]\forall[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex]Ai)[itex]\wedge[/itex][itex]\forall[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex]Bi).

Homework Statement


This means x [itex]\in[/itex][itex]\neg[/itex][itex]\exists[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\notin[/itex]Ai)[itex]\wedge[/itex][itex]\neg\exists[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex][itex]\notin[/itex]Bi)}
Which is equivalent to: x[itex]\in[/itex]{x l [itex]\exists[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex]Ai)[itex]\wedge[/itex][itex]\exists[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex]Bi)}
Therefore, x[itex]\in[/itex]{x l ([itex]\bigcup[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]IAi)[itex]\bigcap[/itex](Ui[itex]\in[/itex]IBi)}
Therefore, is equiv. to Ui[itex]\in[/itex]I(Ai[itex]\bigcap[/itex]Bi), then x[itex]\in[/itex](Ui[itex]\in[/itex]IAi)[itex]\bigcap[/itex](Ii[itex]\in[/itex]IBi).
Therefore Ui[itex]\in[/itex]I(Ai[itex]\bigcap[/itex]Bi)[itex]\subseteq[/itex](Ui[itex]\in[/itex]IAi)[itex]\bigcap[/itex](Ii[itex]\in[/itex]IBi).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
IntroAnalysis said:

The Attempt at a Solution


Suppose arbitrary x. Let x [itex]\in[/itex]
{x l [itex]\forall[/itex]i[itex]\in[/itex]I(x[itex]\in[/itex]Ai[itex]\bigcap[/itex]Bi)

Are you trying to being by taking an arbitrary x in [itex]\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty (A_i \cap B_i)[/itex] ? If so, why are you applying the "[itex]\forall[/itex]" quantifier to the index?

I suggest beginning this way:

Let x be an arbitrary element of [itex]\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty (A_i \cap B_i)[/itex]

For such an x, we know that there exists an index j such that [itex]x \in A_j \cap B_j[/itex]. This follows from the definition and properties of a union of sets.

This implies [itex]x \in A_j[/itex] and [itex]x \in B_j[/itex] by definition of an intersection of two sets.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K