Prove the following:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

If [tex] f : A \rightarrow B [/tex] and [tex] g : C \rightarrow D [/tex], then [tex] f \cap g : A \cap C \rightarrow B \cap D[/tex].

Here's my thoughts/attempt:

Proof:

Let A, B, C, and D be sets. Assume [tex] f : A \rightarrow B [/tex] and [tex] g : C \rightarrow D [/tex]. Let [tex] a \in A [/tex]. Since f is a function from A to B, there is some [tex] y \in B [/tex] such that [tex] (a, y) \in f [/tex]. Let [tex] b \in B [/tex] be such an element, that is, let [tex] b \in B [/tex] such that [tex] (a,b) \in f [/tex]. Let [tex] c \in C [/tex]. Since g is a function from C to D, there is some [tex] z \in D [/tex] such that [tex] (c, z) \in g [/tex]. Let [tex] d \in D [/tex] be such an element, that is, let [tex] d \in D [/tex] such that [tex] (c,d) \in g [/tex].

This is all I have so far.

Would I have to break it into cases where [tex] a = c [/tex] and [tex] a \not= c [/tex]? If [tex] a = c [/tex], [tex] A \cap C [/tex] contains an element, but if [tex] a \not= c [/tex], [tex] A \cap C [/tex] is empty since a and c were arbitrary. The same argument holds for [tex] B \cap D [/tex]. So, taking these things into account, [tex] f \cap g [/tex] is either a function from the set containing a to the set containing b, or its a function from the empty set to the empty set.

Does this make any sense, is it necessary, and how should I write it in my proof?

Thanks in advance.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Proof involving functions

Loading...

Similar Threads - Proof involving functions | Date |
---|---|

Proofs involving Negations and Conditionals | Feb 11, 2016 |

Sets - Relations - proof involving transitivity | Feb 18, 2014 |

Proofs involving relations | Nov 4, 2013 |

Proof involving means in continuous distributions | Apr 25, 2012 |

Proofs involving functions and sets. Related questions. | Aug 16, 2008 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**