How can I prove [(A^B)-(B^C)]-(A^C)'=0 using contradiction?

mathrocks
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to prove the following by contradiction: [(A^B)-(B^C)]-(A^C)'=0. A, B, C are sets. All I know is in order to prove by contradiction you simply set the above not equal to zero. But I don't know where to go from there.

"^" means the intersection symbol.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose

(A \cap B - B \cap C) - (A \cap C)' \neq \emptyset.

Then there is some element x \in ((A \cap B - B \cap C) - (A \cap C)'). But then

x \in A \cap B - B \cap C
x \notin (A \cap C)'

<=>

x \in A \cap B - B \cap C
x \in A \cap C

<=>

x \in A \cap B
x \notin B \cap C
x \in A \cap C

<=>

x \in A
x \in B
x \notin B \cap C
x \in A
x \in C

<=>

x \in A
x \in B
x \in C
x \notin B \cap C.

Which is a contradiction.
 
Suppose it is not zero. Then there is some element x in the set on the left side.
From the last term we infer that x is not an element of (A \cap C)&#039;, (does that ' mean the complement?) so:

x \in A, \quad \mbox{and } x \in C,

take it from there.
 
Last edited:
Ok, let's prove it by contradiction:
let's suppose that
(A^B-B^C)-(A^C)'=!0, where =! means "different to". Then, there is a element namely x such that x E(belongs to) (A^B-B^C)-(A^C)', then, xE(A^B-B^C) and xE!( not belongs to)(A^C)', then, xEA^B and xE!B^C and xEA^C, then
xEA, xEB, xEC and( xE!B or xE!C). Therefore, we have a contradiction.
 
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