Proof of ##\cap_{i\in \cup F}A_i=\cap_{x\in F}(\cap_{i\in X}A_i)##?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of a set-theoretic identity involving intersections and unions of indexed families of sets, specifically focusing on the inference rules used in the proof. Participants are examining the application of universal quantification and the implications of selecting arbitrary elements from sets within the context of the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Post 1 questions whether the author is using universal instantiation for both the arbitrary elements ##X## and ##i## in the proof.
  • Post 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the exercise and its proof, highlighting the steps taken in the forward and backward directions of the proof.
  • Post 3 expresses uncertainty about whether universal instantiation applies to selecting arbitrary elements from a set, suggesting a lack of clarity in the text.
  • Post 4 draws a parallel to a similar statement in commutative algebra, questioning the sufficiency of the proof's clarity and the need for specific inference rules from axiomatic set theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the application of universal instantiation or the clarity of the proof's steps. There are multiple viewpoints regarding the interpretation of the inference rules and their relevance to the proof.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity regarding the application of universal instantiation in the context of selecting arbitrary elements from sets, as well as the potential need for additional inference rules from axiomatic set theory to clarify the proof.

elias001
Messages
389
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Quantifier rules of inferences questions in the proof of ##\cap_{i\in \cup F}A_i=\cap_{x\in F}(\cap_{i\in X}A_i)##?
The screenshots below are taken from the 2nd editon of the book How to Prove it A structured approach By: Daniel Velleman and and 3rd edition of the book's solution manual. (Page 5)

The question on page 4 exercise 5b corresponds to the solution in page 5 exercise 6b

Page 1
Velleman 1.webp

Page 2
Velleman 2.webp

Page 3
Velleman 3.webp

Page 4
Velleman 4.webp

Page 5
Velleman 5.webp


Questions

In the above screenshots, pages one to three lists the inference rules for proving with universal quantifier. But for the exercise 5b in screenshot page 4, the solution exercise 6b shown on page 5 in that screenshot where it says:

Let ##X\in F## be arbitrary. ##i\in X## be arbitrary.

Is the author using using universal instantiation for both ##X## and ##i##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dye to the possibility of the screenshots for pages 4 and 5 being not displaying clearly. I have typed out the relevant protion of the exercise and its proof below.

Exercise (Screenshot Page 4)


5. Suppose ##\mathcal{F}## is a nonempty family of sets. Let ##I=\cup\mathcal{F}## and ##J=\cap\mathcal{F}.## SUppose that also that ##J\neq \emptyset##, and notice that it follows that for every ##X\in \mathcal{F}, X\neq\emptyset,## and also that ##I\neq\emptyset.## Finally, suppose that ##\{A_i\mid i\in I\}## is an indexed family of sets.

(a) Prove that ##\cup_{i\in I}A_i=\cup_{X\in F}(\cup_{i\in X}A_i).##

(b) Prove that ##\cap_{i\in I}A_i=\cap_{X\in F}(\cap_{i\in X}A_i).##

Solution (Screenshot Page 5)

6 (b) Suppose ##x\in \cap_{i\in I}A_i.## Let ##X\in \mathcal{F}## be arbitrary. Let ##i\in X## be arbitrary. Then since ##i\in X## and ##X\in \mathcal{F}##, ##i\in \cup\mathcal{F}=I.## Since ##x\in \cap_{i\in I}A_i,## it follows that ##x\in A_i##, Since ##i## was arbitrary, we can conclude that ##x\in \cap_{i\in X}A_i.## Since ##X## was arbitrary, it follows that ##x\in \cap_{X\in \mathcal{F}}(\cap_{i\in X}A_i).##

Now suppose ##x\in \cap_{X\in \mathcal{F}}(\cap_{i\in X}A_i).## Let ##i\in I## be arbitrary. Since ##I=\cup \mathcal{F}##, this means that we can choose ##X_0\in \mathcal{F}## such that ##i\in X_0.## Since ##x\in \cap_{X\in \mathcal{F}}(\cap_{i\in X}A_i)## and ##X_0\in \mathcal{F},x\in \cap_{i\in X_0}A_i.## But then since ##i\in X_0, x\in A_i.## Since ##i## was arbitrary, we can conclude that ##x\in \cap_{i\in I}A_i.##

In the above proof for the following cases where ##X,i## were first introduced:

Forward direction:

Let ##X\in \mathcal{F},## be arbitrary,

Let ##i\in X,## be arbitrary,

Background direction:

Let ##i\in I## be arbitrary,

We can choose ##X_0\in \mathcal{F}##,

which quantifier rule of inferences were used?
 
Since no one else has responded, I'll give you my answer.

I don't know whether universal instatiation covers the case of selecting an arbitrary element from a set. Or, whether this is another law of axiomatic set theory. It's not clear to me from the text alone.
 
@PeroK the reason I ask this question is because the quantifier statement is the exact same as the following: ##\bigcap_{f\in {\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}S_{\alpha}}}V(f)=\bigcap_{\alpha\in I}\bigcap_{f\in S_{\alpha}}V(f)## from beginning commutative algebra text in the topic of algebraic variety. In Many beginning commutative algebra texts where that statement is introduced, the author would simply state: it is obvious from the definition. If you try to prove it the algebraically like how one would prove Demorgan's law, you would find that the algebraic calulational steps needs inference rule from prenex normal form.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
888