Identities of nested set algebraic expressions

miraiw
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Are there any useful identities for simplifying an expression of the form:
$$((\ldots((x_{1} *_{1} x_{2}) *_{2} x_{3}) \ldots) *_{n - 1} x_{n})$$
Where each $$*_{i}$$ is one of $$\cap, \cup$$ and $$x_1 \ldots x_n$$ are sets?

I believe I found two; though I haven't proved them, I think they make sense:
$$((\ldots((x_{1} \cup x_{2}) *_{2} x_{3}) \ldots) \cup x_{1}) \equiv ((\ldots(x_{2} *_{2} x_{3}) \ldots) \cup x_{1})$$
$$((\ldots((x_{1} \cap x_{2}) *_{2} x_{3}) \ldots) \cap x_{1}) \equiv ((\ldots(x_{2} *_{2} x_{3}) \ldots) \cap x_{1})$$

Generally, how would you prove these? Just induction?

I tested a few expressions with the attached perl script which is why I think they work.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
There are various distributive laws like
(A \cup B) \cap C = (A\cap C) \cup (B \cap C)
(A \cap B) \cup C = (A \cup C) \cap (B \cup C)

Since you are using *_i to represent something that can be either \cup or \cap , I can't tell offhand if your identities are correct. I'd have to consider each possible interpretation of the operation as a separate case.

Induction would be the method of proof, assuming that your "..." indicates a an expression of arbitrary but finite length. If you have in mind some sort of infinitely long expressions, you have to start with the problem of defining what they would mean.
 
I restated the problem in terms of propositions like $$x \in A_{1} \wedge x \in A_{2}$$ and considered that whatever was in the ellipsis would either depend on the innermost expression or not and if it did would either have a value opposite the innermost or the same as. From there I just exhaustively listed the cases and compared. Also, I assumed that the A_{1} doesn't show anywhere in the ellipsis.

I think that's all I need since I can just deal with the rest recursively.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top