Is There an Order of Operations for Boolean Expressions in Sets?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kmwest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operations Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of Boolean expressions, specifically addressing the order of operations for intersection and union in set theory. Participants explore whether there is a standard precedence for these operations and how to interpret ambiguous expressions without clear parentheses.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to simplify the expression (A int B U C) int B due to the lack of parentheses and asks if there is an order of operations for union and intersection.
  • Another participant argues that expressions like A∩B∪C are ill-defined without brackets and suggests the possibility of a typo in the problem statement.
  • A participant mentions that they have seen similar expressions before but finds them ambiguous, proposing that intersection might be given higher precedence than union based on analogies to multiplication and addition.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the notation used, particularly regarding the meaning of bars over the expressions, questioning if they represent logical negation or topological closure.
  • One participant suggests that if the notation is not a typo, the intersection should be evaluated first, aligning with the analogy of multiplication and addition.
  • A later reply notes that a Venn diagram generated by WolframAlpha supports the idea that intersection should be taken first, although the professor has not yet responded to the inquiry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the order of operations for the Boolean expressions discussed. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the notation and the precedence of intersection versus union.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the ambiguity of the notation used in the problem, noting that the lack of parentheses leads to uncertainty in interpretation. The discussion also reflects varying conventions in different fields, such as electronic logic circuit design.

kmwest
Messages
28
Reaction score
1
Hello all. Currently working on simplifying some Boolean expressions, one of the questions is:

( A int B U C) int B

I do not know how to go about simplifying the first term because there are not any parentheses within it and I have both the intersection and union symbols. Is there an order of operations, so to speak, where the union or intersect takes priority? Or I work left-to-right within a set of parentheses, etc. I've searched my textbooks and the Internet and I haven't found anything. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In my experience, an expression like A\cap B\cup C is ill-defined. It needs brackets to let it mean whatever you want it to mean.

So perhaps you copied this problem wrong?? Or the book makes an assumption that is nonstandard (in which case you should read the book to find it).
 
There is a bar over the ( A int B U C) , another bar over the latter B, and another bar over everything. But I don't think that would affect the result.

I've done Boolean expressions before in a discrete math class (this is just an introductory chapter for a reliability engineering course) so this looks so unusual to me. I just re-read the section in the book and it has nothing like this, and only has the odd-looking expressions in the exercises.
 
kmwest said:
There is a bar over the ( A int B U C) , another bar over the latter B, and another bar over everything. But I don't think that would affect the result.

I've done Boolean expressions before in a discrete math class (this is just an introductory chapter for a reliability engineering course) so this looks so unusual to me. I just re-read the section in the book and it has nothing like this, and only has the odd-looking expressions in the exercises.

I've never seen anyone write (A int B U C) because it's so ambiguous. But if I HAD to evaluate it, I would give intersection higher precedence than union, because intersection is analogous to multiplication, and union is analogous to addition. But I've never seen that convention used the way you have it here. I wonder if there's a typo.

Exactly what are the bars over? And are they bars as in "logical negation" or bars as in "topological closure?" Are you in set theory class or real analysis class? The more context you can give, the better.
 
I just made the attached in Paint. This isn't even for a math class, it is part of a reliability engineering course. It is part of an early chapter on basic related math, including probability distributions and very introductory set theory.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.gif
    Untitled.gif
    2.5 KB · Views: 1,170
kmwest said:
I just made the attached in Paint. This isn't even for a math class, it is part of a reliability engineering course. It is part of an early chapter on basic related math, including probability distributions and very introductory set theory.

If it's not a typo in the book, take the intersection first. For the reason I have above. When people generalize intersections and unions to Boolean algebra, intersection is multiplication and union is addition. If you have to interpret this as opposed to asking your teacher if its a typo, then the only choice is taking the intersection first.
 
Yes, I'm going to ask the teacher because nothing along these lines were in the text. I doubt it's a typo though, as it happens again in another question! Thanks.
 
Interesting, when you type in 'b union c intersection a' into WolframAlpha, it produces a Venn diagram that is equivalent to 'b union (c intersection a)'. So you seem to be right, intersection should be taken first. (Prof hasn't got back to me yet...)
 
micromass said:
In my experience, an expression like A\cap B\cup C is ill-defined. It needs brackets to let it mean whatever you want it to mean.

So perhaps you copied this problem wrong?? Or the book makes an assumption that is nonstandard (in which case you should read the book to find it).

Within some fields (e.g. electronic logic circuit design) it is coventional to use the same notation conventions as the algebra of numbers, where addition is analogous to union and multiplication is analogous to intersection. So AB + CD means (A intersection B) union (C intersection D).

But I agree that if you don't know the context, the OP's notation is ambiguous.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K