Proof Wrong: Where f(A∩B) ≠ f(A) ∩ f(B)

  • Thread starter Thread starter woundedtiger4
  • Start date Start date
woundedtiger4
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
I know that f(A∩B) is not equal to f(A) ∩ f(B) but i don't know that where am i wrong in the following proof...:( can someone please give me an intuitive example?
ImageUploadedByPhysics Forums1372525850.531238.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In order to prove "X= Y" you must prove both "X\subseteq Y" and Y\subseteq X.

You want to prove that f(A\cap B) is not equal to f(A)\cap f(B) and your give proof shows only that f(A\cap B)\subseteq f(A)\cap f(B).

So look for a counter example in which f(A)\cap f(B) is NOT a subset of f(A\cap B).

That is, find a function f and values p and q, p in A, q in B such that f(p)= f(q).
 
HallsofIvy said:
In order to prove "X= Y" you must prove both "X\subseteq Y" and Y\subseteq X.

You want to prove that f(A\cap B) is not equal to f(A)\cap f(B) and your give proof shows only that f(A\cap B)\subseteq f(A)\cap f(B).

So look for a counter example in which f(A)\cap f(B) is NOT a subset of f(A\cap B).

That is, find a function f and values p and q, p in A, q in B such that f(p)= f(q).
Thank you sir.
I understand your point & I can guess the best example is one to many which is not true, & i have tried to show it in proof.
ImageUploadedByPhysics Forums1372546039.352093.jpg
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top