How to write this in Set Theory notation?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around expressing a physical problem involving the intersection of two circular areas, denoted as Area 1 (A) and Area 2 (B), using Set Theory notation. The original poster seeks to articulate the intersection while considering an additional condition that the intersection area must be smaller than Area B.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore how to express the intersection of two sets in Set Theory notation, particularly under the constraint that the intersection area is contained within one of the sets. Questions arise about the proper notation to indicate this relationship.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide insights into the properties of set intersections, noting that the intersection of two sets is inherently a subset of both sets. There is ongoing clarification regarding the notation and whether additional conditions are necessary to express the relationship accurately.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss potential confusion regarding the implications of one area being completely contained within another and how this affects the intersection notation. The physical context involves a scenario with a jet of water and a hole, which adds complexity to the mathematical representation.

danielFiuza
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone,

I am trying to write the intersection of a physical problem in the most compact way.
I am not really familiar with Set Theory notation, but I think it has the answer.

It is about the intersection of two circular areas:
- Area 1: A
- Area 2: B
If I want to write this in Set Theory notation:
A_intersection = A ∩ B

Until this point everything is okay. But I have an extra condition
- Extra condition: intersection area always smaller than B (or in other words, the intersection area needs to be contained in B).
A_intersection = min{A ∩ B, B}
(ie. The maximum intersection area can not be larger than B)

How can I write this? Is there any short mathematical symbol for that?

Kind regards,

Daniel

PS: Physically, I am trying to describe a situation as the following one:
' A jet of water of radius R1 impinging against a wall with a hole of radius R2, misaligned from the opening. The water is driven through the intersection area, given that the intersectio area is smaller always that the hole radius R2'
1) For a perfectly aligned jet with the opening:
- If the radius of the jet R1 is smaller than the opening radius R2, all the fluid from the jet goes inside. -> R1
- If the area of the jet R1 is larger than the hole area R2, only the area R2 drives fluids-> R2
2) Then extending this for different misalignments.
Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 16.18.53.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 16.18.53.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 16.18.53.png
    69 KB · Views: 457
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
danielFiuza said:
Hello Everyone,

I am trying to write the intersection of a physical problem in the most compact way.
I am not really familiar with Set Theory notation, but I think it has the answer.

It is about the intersection of two circular areas:
- Area 1: A
- Area 2: B
If I want to write this in Set Theory notation:
A_intersection = A ∩ B

Until this point everything is okay. But I have an extra condition
- Extra condition: intersection area always smaller than B (or in other words, the intersection area needs to be contained in B).
A_intersection = min{A ∩ B, B}
(ie. The maximum intersection area can not be larger than B)

How can I write this? Is there any short mathematical symbol for that?

The intersection of two sets cannot be larger than either set. We have:

##A \cap B \subseteq A## and ##A \cap B \subseteq B##

This follows because the intersection is only things that are in each set. By definition, therefore, the intersection of two sets is a subset of each set.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: danielFiuza
danielFiuza said:
But I have an extra condition
- Extra condition: intersection area always smaller than B (or in other words, the intersection area needs to be contained in B).
A_intersection = min{A ∩ B, B}

As to containment, it is always true that ##A \cap B \subseteq B##, so you don't need to state this as an additional condition.

If you want to require that ##A \cap B ## be a proper subset of ##B##, it's safest to write this as ##A \subsetneqq B##. (Some people interpret ""##\subset##"" to mean the same things as "##\subseteq##", others interpret it to mean "##\subsetneqq##" ).
 
Thanks Stephen. Just to be clear, is ##A \cap B = B \cap A ##?
Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 16.18.53.png


PeroK said:
The intersection of two sets cannot be larger than either set. We have:

##A \cap B \subseteq A## and ##A \cap B \subseteq B##

This follows because the intersection is only things that are in each set. By definition, therefore, the intersection of two sets is a subset of each set.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 16.18.53.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-22 at 16.18.53.png
    69 KB · Views: 947
danielFiuza said:
Thanks Stephen. Just to be clear, is ##A \cap B = B \cap A ##?

If you imagine drawing your sets on a Venn diagram, where ##A \cap B## is the area of overlap between ##A## and ##B##; and, ##B \cap A## is the area of overlap between ##B## and ##A##; then, would you say these represent the same area?
 
Last edited:
danielFiuza said:
Thanks Stephen. Just to be clear, is ##A \cap B = B \cap A ##?
View attachment 232588

Is the set of males over 20 years of age the same as the set of people over 20 years of age who are male?
 
PeroK said:
If you imagine drawing your sets on a Venn diagram, where ##A \cap B## is the area of overlap between ##A## and ##B##; and, ##B \cap A## is the area of overlap between ##B## and ##A##; then, would you say these represent the same area?

Yes, they represent the same area.
I am still confused when the one of the areas is completely contained inside the other (see first column of the diagram attached in the thread). Eg. A belongs to/is contained in B or area B belong to A. Does that still holds? That's were my confusion arises with the notation of ##\cap##.

Thanks again,
 
danielFiuza said:
Yes, they represent the same area.
I am still confused when the one of the areas is completely contained inside the other (see first column of the diagram attached in the thread). Eg. A belongs to/is contained in B or area B belong to A. Does that still holds? That's were my confusion arises with the notation of ##\cap##.

Thanks again,

In the case where ##A \subseteq B##, then the intersection of the two sets is the set ##A##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K