"Minimal Cover" in Finite Collection of Sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Sets
WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,678
Reaction score
12,350
Hi All,
Say we have a finite collection ## S_1,...,S_n ## of sets , which are not all pairwise disjoint , and we want
to find the minimal collection of the ## S_j ## whose union is ## \cup S_j ## . Is there
any theorem, result to this effect?

I would imagine that making the ## S_j## pairwise-disjoint would help. Is there some other way?
I think I remember some results about results elated to minimal systems of representatives, maybe would also work?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
An interesting problem!
I don't have a full solution but here is an intermediate step:

Without loss of generality, you can assume that ##S_i \subset \cup S_{j\neq i}## for all i. If this would be wrong, you know Si has to be part of the minimal cover, this allows to restrict the problem to the subproblem without that Si and its elements. This step can be repeated until the first condition is true, or the remaining collection of sets is empty.

Also, for each pair of sets Si, Sj, ##S_i \not\subset S_j## otherwise you can remove Si.
 
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...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top