Logically Prove (A \cup B) \subseteq C

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajsingh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving that if sets A and B are subsets of set C, then the union of A and B, denoted as (A ∪ B), is also a subset of C. The participants analyze the logical flow of the proof, highlighting the importance of correctly stating assumptions. Specifically, they emphasize that the assumption should be "x ∈ A ∪ B" instead of assuming elements belong to both A and B simultaneously. The proof is validated through examples, demonstrating that the union of subsets maintains the subset relationship with C.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory, specifically subset and union definitions.
  • Familiarity with logical notation and implications in mathematical proofs.
  • Knowledge of basic proof techniques in mathematics.
  • Ability to analyze logical arguments and identify errors in reasoning.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of set operations, focusing on union and intersection.
  • Learn about logical implications and how to construct valid mathematical proofs.
  • Explore counterexamples in set theory to strengthen understanding of subset relationships.
  • Investigate advanced topics in set theory, such as cardinality and infinite sets.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying set theory and logic, as well as educators looking to enhance their understanding of proof techniques and logical reasoning in mathematics.

ajsingh
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



To prove A \subseteq C and B \subseteq C implies (A \cup B)\subseteq C

2. The attempt at a solution

I just wanted to know if my reasoning seems logical. Here is my attempt:

Assume A \subseteq C and B \subseteq C ... (1)
Assume \forall x [ x\in A] and \forall x [x \in B] ... (2)
Hence, from definition of \bigcup \forall x [x \in A \cup B ] ... (3)

From (1) and defination of \subseteq, \forall x [ x \in A \Rightarrow x \in C and x \in B \Rightarrow x \in C ] ..... (4)

Hence, \forall x [x \in A \cup B \Rightarrow x \in C] ..... (5)

\Rightarrow (A \cup B) \subseteq C<br /> <br />

Does that seem to flow logically?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Ajsingh!

I think your progression is correct except for premise 2. You say that x is an element of A, AND, x is an element of B. That can be true, but it doesn't have to be true. I recommend switching the AND to an OR. After you make that change, I don't see any fault in your logic. I also think it flows better if you switch premises 3 and 4. I know it's semantics but the progression seems better to me.

I also want to point out that unless specified in the problem, it might be enough to simply demonstrate that this proof is true. What if you assigned C={1,2,3,4,5}, A={1,2,3}, B={3,4}

A is a subset of C. B is a subset of C, A U B = {1,2,3,4} which also is a subset of C. Proved. I mention this, because it also shows a contradiction to your premise #2. Namely, 4 is an element of B but NOT an element of A.

Hope this helps!

Steve
 
ajsingh said:

Homework Statement



To prove A \subseteq C and B \subseteq C implies (A \cup B)\subseteq C

2. The attempt at a solution
You want to prove one set is a subset of another. The standard way of doing that is to say "if x in the first set" and show "therefore x is in the second set".

I just wanted to know if my reasoning seems logical. Here is my attempt:

Assume A \subseteq C and B \subseteq C ... (1)
While this isn't, strictly speaking, wrong, you don't need to "assume" that- it is given.

Assume \forall x [ x\in A] and \forall x [x \in B] ... (2)
Now you don't want to say that! For one thing, A and B might be disjoint- there might be no such x! What you want to say is "Assume x\in A\cup B.

Hence, from definition of \bigcup \forall x [x \in A \cup B ] ... (3)
x doesn't have to be in both A and B in order to be in A\cup B!

[quote\From (1) and defination of \subseteq, \forall x [ x \in A \Rightarrow x \in C and x \in B \Rightarrow x \in C ] ..... (4)
You are going the wrong way. Starting from the assumption that a\in A \cup B it follows that either x\in A or x\in B.

Hence, \forall x [x \in A \cup B \Rightarrow x \in C] ..... (5)

\Rightarrow (A \cup B) \subseteq C<br /> <br />

Does that seem to flow logically?

Thanks
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K