MHB How Can I Prove the Set Operation AX(BΔC) = (AXB)Δ(AXC)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter daniel felipe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Demonstration Set
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the set operation AX(BΔC) = (AXB)Δ(AXC). The proof begins by considering an element (x,y) in A×(BΔC) and analyzing the implications of y being in either B or C, but not both. It demonstrates that if y is in B and not in C, then (x,y) belongs to A×B but not to A×C, thus confirming (x,y) is in (A×B)Δ(A×C). A similar argument is made for the case where y is in C but not in B. The conclusion invites further exploration of proving the converse inclusion.
daniel felipe
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello
There is the possibility that they help me to solve this demonstration. please

AX(BΔC)=(AXB)Δ(AXC)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, and welcome to the forum.

daniel felipe said:
AX(BΔC)=(AXB)Δ(AXC)
Suppose that $(x,y)\in A\times(B\triangle C)$. Then $x\in A$ and $y\in B\triangle C$. The latter means that $y\in B$ or $y\in C$, but not both. In the first case, i.e., $y\in B$ but $y\notin C$, we have $(x,y)\in A\times B$. However, $(x,y)\notin A\times C$ because that would mean, in particular, that $y\in C$. Therefore, $(x,y)\in (A\times B)\triangle (A\times C)$. The second case ($y\in C$ but $y\notin B$) is considered similarly. This concludes the proof that $A\times(B\triangle C)\subseteq (A\times B)\triangle (A\times C)$. You can try proving the converse inclusion.

For the future, please read the http://mathhelpboards.com/rules/, especially rule 11 (click "Expand" button on top).
 
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.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top