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
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on diagramming set inclusions among the sets P, O, S, and E, emphasizing the concept of subset relationships. It is established that $\emptyset$ is a subset of all sets, while $U$ is the universal set. The sets P and O are identified as incomparable, meaning neither is a subset of the other due to their distinct elements. To create a correct diagram, participants are advised to list all subset pairs and arrange them accordingly, ensuring that each subset is positioned below its superset.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory, specifically subset notation
  • Familiarity with the concepts of linear order and comparability of sets
  • Knowledge of universal sets and their properties
  • Ability to diagram relationships between mathematical sets
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of subsets and supersets in set theory
  • Learn about linear orders and their implications in set relationships
  • Explore examples of set diagrams to visualize inclusion relationships
  • Study the concept of incomparable sets and their significance in mathematics
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying set theory, as well as anyone involved in mathematical diagramming and visualization techniques.

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: 110
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
4K
  • · 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