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
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)}
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
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...
Back
Top