Prove U1+U2+U3 Theorem with Dimensions

  • Thread starter Thread starter pte419
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dimensions
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a theorem related to the dimensions of subsets U1, U2, and U3 of a finite set, specifically focusing on the equation involving their dimensions and intersections.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the dimensions of the subsets and their intersections, with some suggesting the application of known theorems. Questions arise regarding the starting point for the proof and the equivalence of certain terms.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing insights and attempting to clarify the connections between the dimensions of the sets. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of known equations, and there is an exploration of different approaches, including induction.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that they are allowed to use certain equations in their proof, and there is a mention of potential constraints regarding the order of proving the equations. Additionally, there is uncertainty about the properties of intersections that may aid in the proof.

pte419
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
1. For subsets U1, U2, U3 of a finite set, prove that

dim(U1+U2+U3) = dimU1 + dimU2 + dimU3 - dim(U1∩U2) - dim(U1∩U3) - dim(U2∩U3) + dim(U1∩U2∩U3)



2. dim(U1+U2) = dimU1 + dimU2 - dim(U1∩U2)



3. I found that U1+U2 theorem in my book, and I think I should use that, but I'm not sure where to start...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let V = U1 + U2. Now apply the theorem to V + U3.

Unless you are asked to prove 2 before proving 1. If this is the case please make it clear.
 
Last edited:
The two equations are also true, and easier to see, with the vectors spaces replaced by finite sets and the dimensions replaced by the sizes of the sets. It's possible, by picking certain bases, to make the two problems equivalent. But, as enumaelish hints, induction is probably easier.
 
proof

I am only asked to prove equation one, but in doing that, I am allowed to use equation 2.
 
Thanks guys, I've got one more question.

I did: dim(V+U3)
and I've ended up with:
dim(V+U3) = dimU1 + dimU2 - dim(U1∩U2) + dimU3 - dim(V∩U3)

Is there a property I can use to show that dim(V∩U3) is equivalent to the terms I still need to include for the proof? I can't find anything helpful in my book...
 
dim(V\cap U_{3}) = dim((U_{1}+U_{2})\cap U_{3}) = dim((U_{1}\cap U_{3}) + (U_{2}\cap U_{3}))

Break that term up again using the second part and you're done.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K