Is A-(BnC)=(A-B)U(A-C) a Valid Equation in Set Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_skier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of the equation A - (B ∩ C) = (A - B) ∪ (A - C) in set theory. Participants analyze the definitions of set difference and intersection, concluding that A - (B ∩ C) indeed represents elements in A that are not in both B and C. They clarify that (A - B) ∪ (A - C) captures elements in A that are not in B or not in C, thus supporting the equation. Some participants emphasize the need for rigorous justification of each step in the proof. The conversation highlights the importance of precise definitions in set theory to ensure correct conclusions.
a_skier
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
A-(B\bigcapC)=(A-B)\bigcup(A-C)

If A-B={xlx\inA and x\notinB}
A-C={xlx\inA and x\notinC}

then (A-B)\bigcup(A-C)={xlx\inA, x\notin(B and C)

Let X=A and Y=(B\bigcapC)

X-Y={xlx\inX and x\notinY}
x\notinY
x\notin(B\bigcapC)
x\notin(B and C)

Therefore, A-(B\bigcapC)=(A-B)\bigcup(A-C).

Is this anywhere close to being right? I want to self study some rigorous math this summer but the hard part is that I don't have anything to check against to see if my answers are correct or not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a_skier said:
A-(B\bigcapC)=(A-B)\bigcup(A-C)

If A-B={xlx\inA and x\notinB}
A-C={xlx\inA and x\notinC}

then (A-B)\bigcup(A-C)={xlx\inA, x\notin(B and C)

Let X=A and Y=(B\bigcapC)

X-Y={xlx\inX and x\notinY}
x\notinY
x\notin(B\bigcapC)
x\notin(B and C)

Therefore, A-(B\bigcapC)=(A-B)\bigcup(A-C).

Is this anywhere close to being right? I want to self study some rigorous math this summer but the hard part is that I don't have anything to check against to see if my answers are correct or not.

(A-B)\bigcup(A-C)={xlx\inA, x\notin(B and C)
has to be justified.

also "and" and "\bigcap" are the same.
 
I always find it fascinating that people use latex just for a single symbol, instead of formatting whole expression.

A-(B\cap C)=(A-B)\cup(A-C)
 
Ok so I worked through all the exercises up to this one. Here's what I came up with.

prove:
A−(B\capC)=(A−B)\cup(A−C)

Let S=B\capC={xlx\inB, and x\inC} (By the definition of intersection)

Thus A-S={xlx\inA and x\notinS}
={xlx\inA,x\notinB, and x\notinC} (see justification 1)

Next, let S_{1}=A-B={xlx\inA and x\notinB}
let S_{2}=A-C={xlx\inA and x\notinC}

Thus, S_{1}\cupS_{2}={xlx\inA. x\notinB, and x\notinC} (by the definition of union - see 2)

Therefore: A-S=S_{1}\cupS_{2}

Justifications:

1)A-B={xlx\inA and x\notinB}
2) Union is defined as the set of those elements which are in A, in B, or in both. Therefore if A={xlx satisfies P and x\notinC} and B={xlx satisfies Q and x\notinD} (where P and Q are arbitrary conditions and C and D are other sets) then A\cupB= {xlx satisfies P,Q, x\notinC, and x\notinD}.

What do you guys think?
 
Thus A-S={xlx∈ A and x∉ S}
={xlx∈ A,x∉ B, and x∉ C} (see justification 1)

Wrong: should be {xlx∈ A and (x∉ B or x∉ C)}
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top