MHB Proving (A⊕B)∩A= A-B: A Simple Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter putiiik
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the equation (A⊕B)∩A= A-B, with participants exploring various proof methods including set algebra identities and Venn diagrams. The term "symmetric difference" is clarified, indicating that A⊕B represents the union of two sets excluding their intersection. There is some confusion regarding the use of the "+" symbol to denote a difference, which is addressed by explaining that it reflects the union of mutual differences. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these definitions in set theory. Overall, the thread highlights the nuances in set operations and their representations.
putiiik
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Prove that (A⊕B)∩A= A-B! Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are various ways of proving this: using the fundamental identities of set algebra, using Euler-Venn diagrams, by definition using mutual inclusion of the left- and right-hand sides, etc. Which one is used in your course? And if it is the first method, are you familiar with the fundamental identities?
 
For arbitrary sets, union $A\cup B$, intersection $A\cap B$, and difference A\ B, are defined but how are you defining the "direct sum" $A\bigoplus B$ of sets?
 
It seems very strange to us a "+" symbol to mean a "difference".
 
Country Boy said:
It seems very strange to us a "+" symbol to mean a "difference".
It's the union of both sets except for their intersection.
As such a "+" seems appropriate.
It's just that to define it, we typically take the union of the 2 mutual differences, which is apparently why it is called symmetric difference.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.

Similar threads