MHB I would like to know for example how I prove or disprove this sentence ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathPro17
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the mathematical statements involving set theory. The initial query seeks to establish whether the conditions A\C = B\C and A ∩ C = B ∩ C imply A ⊆ B. Participants clarify that the phrasing should be "it is the case" instead of "exists" and provide a proof using set operations. The conversation then shifts to proving the equality P(A ∩ B) = P(A) ∩ P(B), with suggestions to use the definition of the powerset and equivalence relations. The focus remains on guiding the original poster to complete the proofs using logical steps and definitions.
MathPro17
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am new here ,
I have stuck to Proved or disproved This sentence :
If for any A,B,C sets exist A\C=B\C And A ∩ C =B ∩ C , then A⊆ B.

Thanks very much for help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
MathPro17 said:
If for any A,B,C sets exist A\C=B\C And A ∩ C =B ∩ C , then A⊆ B.
Do you mean "it is the case" instead of "exists"? That is, is the claim as follows: If $A\setminus C=B\setminus C$ and $A\cap C=B\cap C$ for some sets $A$, $B$ and $C$, then $A\subseteq B$?

Note that $X\setminus Y=X\cap\overline{Y}$, so $X=X\cap(Y\cup\overline{Y})=(X\cap Y)\cup (X\setminus Y)$. Therefore,
\[
A=(A\cap C)\cup (A\setminus C)=\text{ (by assumption) }(B\cap C)\cup (B\setminus C)=B.
\]
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Do you mean "it is the case" instead of "exists"? That is, is the claim as follows: If $A\setminus C=B\setminus C$ and $A\cap C=B\cap C$ for some sets $A$, $B$ and $C$, then $A\subseteq B$?

Note that $X\setminus Y=X\cap\overline{Y}$, so $X=X\cap(Y\cup\overline{Y})=(X\cap Y)\cup (X\setminus Y)$. Therefore,
\[
A=(A\cap C)\cup (A\setminus C)=\text{ (by assumption) }(B\cap C)\cup (B\setminus C)=B.
\]

Yes I mean for that .
I would like to your help with another thing - to prove this :
P(A∩B)=P(A)∩P(B)
if you could prove it with:"x ∈ to P()..." ?

Thanks.
 
MathPro17 said:
I would like to your help with another thing - to prove this :
P(A∩B)=P(A)∩P(B)
if you could prove it with:"x ∈ to P()..." ?
Why don't you continue $X\in P(A\cap B)\iff\dots$ yourself? You'll need $X\subseteq A\cap B\iff X\subseteq A\land X\subseteq B$ where $\land$ means "and".
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Why don't you continue $X\in P(A\cap B)\iff\dots$ yourself? You'll need $X\subseteq A\cap B\iff X\subseteq A\land X\subseteq B$ where $\land$ means "and".

I Mean How could I prove this : "P(A∩B)=P(A)∩P(B)" with Some X that I take ?
Thanks.
 
MathPro17 said:
I Mean How could I prove this : "P(A∩B)=P(A)∩P(B)" with Some X that I take ?
You need to show $X\in P(A\cap B)\iff X\in P(A)\cap P(B)$ for all sets $X$. Why don't you continue the series of equivalences $X\in P(A\cap B)\iff\dots$ using the definition of powerset?
 
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