Proving Element In Union of Two Infinite Sets Not Necessarily In Intersection

woundedtiger4
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Problem:
Prove that if an element is in the union of two infinite sets then it is not necessarily in their intersection:

Proof:
ImageUploadedByPhysics Forums1371044407.002411.jpg


Have I solved it correctly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good.
 
Correct but awkward. The best way to prove something is NOT true is to give a counter-example. Let A= {(x, 0)}, the set of all points on the x-axis. Let B= {(0, y)}, the set of all points on the y-axis. Those are both infinite sets and their union is the set of all pairs of numbers in which at least one of the pair is 0. But their intersection is just {(0, 0)}.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Correct but awkward.
I don't see the OP's method being any more or less awkward than yours, really.

The best way to prove something is NOT true is to give a counter-example.
That is exactly what the OP did; just using a different couple of sets. The main difference was that the OP's two sets didn't even intersect at all, which is fine.

In fact, you could argue that that is a more obvious way to find a counter-example. Surely it is easier to find two infinite sets that do not intersect in the first place?

However, I'm not saying your answer was awkward either. :smile:
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.

Similar threads

Back
Top