Power Sets: What's wrong with this reasoning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AKG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power Sets
AKG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,559
Reaction score
4
Let \mathcal{P}(X) denote the power set of a set X.

1.\ \{x\} \in \mathcal{P}(\cup X_i) \Leftrightarrow x \in \cup X_i \Leftrightarrow (\exists i)(x \in X_i) \Leftrightarrow (\exists i)(\{x\} \in \mathcal{P}(X_i)) \Leftrightarrow \{x\} \in \cup\mathcal{P}(X_i)

2. If two power sets share the same one-point sets, then they are the same. In particular, the power set of the union is the union of the power sets.

3.\ S \subset \cup X_i \Leftrightarrow S \in \mathcal{P}(\cup X_i) \Leftrightarrow S \in \cup\mathcal{P}(X_i) \Leftrightarrow (\exists i)(S \in \mathcal{P}(X_i)) \Leftrightarrow (\exists i)(S \subset X_i)

However, let i range over {1, 2}, let Xi = {i}. Let X denote the union of the Xi. Now X is the union of the Xi, and hence is contained in the union of the Xi, but X is not contained in any single Xi, contradicting line 3. So somewhere in either line 1, 2, or 3, there is a mistake. Where is it?

EDIT: Oh, I think I see the problem. Line 2 doesn't apply to line 1. That is, the union of the power sets does contain the same one point sets as the power set of the unions, but the union of the power sets is not generally a power set, so there's no reason for it to equal the power set of the union.

This thread can be deleted.
 
Last edited:
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