Proofs on Sets: Help with Proving (A \cup B) X C

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigrodey77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs Sets
bigrodey77
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I'm having a hard time trying to prove a few things. I'm looking for a little help because I cannot seem to grasp the concept of proofs and what constitutes a valid proof and if my proof is wrong, correcting it.

I have a proof done and if anyone could "critique" it I would be very grateful.

Prove: (A \cup B) X C = (A X C) \cup (B X C)

Proof:
Let x \in (A \cup B) X C
Then x is of the type (y,z) where y \in A and z \in C
Then y \in A or y \in B
Since z \in C, (y,z) \in A X C or
Since z \in C, (y,z) \in B X C
Then (y,z) \in (A X C) \cup (B X C)
Therefore (A \cup B) X C = (A X C) \cup (B X C)

Thanks for your time,

Ryan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is X? does it stand for \cap?
 
EnumaElish said:
What is X? does it stand for \cap?

I would assume that it represents the cartesian product.
 
d_leet said:
I would assume that it represents the cartesian product.
"Duh!"

Let x in (A U B) X C
Then x is of the type (y,z) where y in A or B and z in C.

Otherwise your logic is correct.
 
Last edited:
Thank you guys very much for your responses, I am sure I'll have a couple more here tomorrow...

Thanks again!
 
Technical point: it would be better to say IF x\in (A\Cup B)\cross C. "let x ..." runs into trouble if the set is empty!

More important point: you have proved that (A\Cup B) X C \subset (A X C)\Cup (B X C), not that they are equal you still have to prove that "if x is in (A X C)\Cup (B X C), then it is in (A\Cup B) X C[\itex].
 
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.

Similar threads

Back
Top