MHB Identity Proof: (A-B)-C=A-(B∪C)

AI Thread Summary
To prove the identity (A-B)-C=A-(B∪C), the discussion highlights the use of set identities, specifically A-B=A\bar{B} and \overline{B∪C}=\bar{B}\bar{C}. The proof involves manipulating these identities to show the equivalence. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding set operations and their properties, including commutativity and associativity. Participants are encouraged to apply the provided identities to validate the equality. This exploration of set theory identities is crucial for grasping advanced concepts in mathematics.
gicm
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Show that(A-B)-C=A-(BUC)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This can be shown using identities on sets. Two identities are: $A-B=A\bar{B}$ and $\overline{B\cup C}=\bar{B}\bar{C}$. Here $\bar{A}$ denotes the complement of $A$, and I skip intersection, i.e., I write $AB$ for $A\cap B$. There are numerous other identities on sets, such as commutativity and associativity of intersection and union, laws involving the empty set and so on. Can you use the ones I provided to prove your equality?
 

Thread 'Formal derivation of statement from Peano Arithmetic system'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Value of intuitionistic logic'

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.
View full post »

Similar threads

B Proof of the identity A\(A\B)=B
Replies
5
Views
5K
MHB Can You Help Prove This Combinatorial Identity?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Countability of binary Strings
Replies
18
Views
2K
Chernoff Bounds using importance sampling identity
Replies
0
Views
2K
MHB Prove that A - (B U C) = (A - B) ∩ (A - C)
Replies
3
Views
129K
MHB Operations on Sets: Proving A⊆B⊆C & A∪B=B∩C
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Is this a finite argument of the countable infiniteness of the rationals?
Replies
21
Views
3K
B Probability of arranging identical objects
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Is this conditional expectation identity true?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Is an algorithm for a proof required to halt?
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top