How to Correctly Diagram Set Inclusions Among P, O, S, and E?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian82784
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around how to correctly diagram set inclusions among the sets P, O, S, and E. Participants are exploring the relationships between these sets, specifically whether they can be arranged in a linear order based on subset relations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in creating the correct diagram for the set inclusions.
  • Another participant notes that the empty set is a subset of all sets and suggests listing the inclusions among P, O, S, and E.
  • There is a question about whether the sets can be arranged in a linear order, which requires that for every two sets, one must be a subset of the other.
  • Concerns are raised about the relationship between sets P and O, particularly whether they are comparable under subset inclusion.
  • A participant explains the concept of subset inclusion and provides an example to clarify the definition.
  • It is noted that P and O are not comparable, as neither is a subset of the other, which suggests that a linear arrangement may not be possible.
  • Participants are encouraged to identify all pairs of sets that exhibit subset relationships to complete the diagram.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the sets can be arranged in a linear order, as there is disagreement about the relationships between P and O. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct diagram for the set inclusions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the clarity of the relationships among the sets, as well as the definitions and examples provided. The concept of comparability in set inclusion is also not fully resolved.

Brian82784
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I've been trying to figure this practice problem out for a week now and I can't seem to come up with the correct diagram any help would be awesome.
 

Attachments

  • Hasse.jpg
    Hasse.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 113
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi and welcome to the forum!

Obviously, $\emptyset$ is a subset of all these sets and all sets are subsets of $U$. So, $\emptyset$ is the bottom element of the diagram and $U$ is the top one. Can you list other set inclusions among $P$, $O$, $S$ and $E$ (i.e., what is a subset of what)?
 
So this would be in a linear order?
 
I don't know why but this isn't clicking with me. I figured from the start this would be linear, but I wasn't sure.
 
Kristen said:
So this would be in a linear order?
Linear order happens when for every two sets, one is a subset of the other. Is this true for $P$ and $O$? You also have not listed inclusions...
 
You also have not listed inclusions... What do you mean by this?

So are you saying that it wouldn't be linear because P and O are not matching. P has a 2 whereas O has a 1?
 
Kristen said:
You also have not listed inclusions... What do you mean by this?
I wrote in post #2:
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Can you list other set inclusions among $P$, $O$, $S$ and $E$ (i.e., what is a subset of what)?
It's a good idea, if a response to your post is not clear, to ask questions about it right away. Otherwise we may give you a lot of recommendations and be under impression that you got them while this may not be so.

Kristen said:
So are you saying that it wouldn't be linear because P and O are not matching. P has a 2 whereas O has a 1?
You need to master the concept of set inclusion. A set $A$ is a called subset of a set $B$, and this is denoted by $A\subseteq B$, if every element of $A$ is also an element of $B$. For example, $\{1,3\}\subseteq\{1,2,3,4\}$, but $\{1,3\}\nsubseteq\{2,3,4,5\}$ because $1\in\{1,3\}$, but $1\notin\{2,3,4,5\}$. In this topic, we don't say that sets are matching; it's not a technical term.

What can be said about $P$ and $O$? Yes, $P$ has a 2 whereas $O$ has a 1, but this does not mean by itself that $P\nsubseteq O$ and $O\nsubseteq P$. Maybe $P$ also has 1 and $O$ has 2. The fact is that this is not the case: $1\in O$, but $1\notin P$, which means $O\nsubseteq P$. Similarly, $2\in P$, but $2\notin O$, so $P\nsubseteq O$. The sets $P$ and $O$ are what is called incomparable under $\subseteq$. In a linear order, meanwhile, all sets are comparable.

To finish the diagram, I suggest you write all pairs of sets among $P$, $O$, $E$ and $S$ such that the first one is a subset of the second. For example, $S\subseteq P$ and so on. Then arrange the sets so that each subset is below its superset. As has been said, $\emptyset$ is a subset of everything, so it is the bottom element in the diagram.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K