Proving Basic Set Theory: Trichotomy, Union, Intersection, and Multiplication

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving fundamental concepts in set theory, including trichotomy, union, intersection, and multiplication of sets. Participants explore definitions and implications of these concepts, as well as the methods for proving relationships between sets.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the definitions of multiplication of sets and the implications of trichotomy, suggesting a need for clarity on these concepts.
  • Another participant explains that two sets are equal if they contain the same members, outlining a method for proving equality by examining arbitrary members of the sets.
  • A participant questions the validity of a specific equation presented by the original poster, prompting further examination of the claims made.
  • Multiple participants clarify that the Cartesian product of two sets A and B consists of all ordered pairs (a, b) where a is in A and b is in B, discussing different definitions of ordered pairs.
  • There is a correction regarding the validity of a proposed equation, with one participant indicating that the left-hand side is actually empty and asking for clarification on the original intent.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of starting with definitions when proving relationships, reiterating the logical structure needed to derive implications between sets.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the third equation mentioned, with some expressing confusion and others providing corrections. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific claims and proofs presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various definitions and implications, but there are unresolved assumptions and potential ambiguities in the mathematical statements made. The discussion reflects differing interpretations of set operations and their proofs.

SpY]
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
At first glance these things seem so intuitive and familiar from other maths (like distribution) that I don't see how/where to start in proving them; while I know its probably quite simple. I understand what union and intersection are, but I'm unsure if multiplying two sets means a new set with elements being every permutation between the two sets.

Trichotomy - [tex]A \subseteq B , B \subseteq C then A \subseteq C[/tex]
For non empty sets, [tex]A \times (B \cap C) = (A \times B) \cap (A \times C)[/tex]
[tex](A \times B) \cap (A\timesB) = (A \cap B) \times (A \cap B)[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Two sets are equal if and only if they have the same members. So X=Y if and only if every member of X is a member of Y and every member of Y is a member of X. To prove equality, you should start out saying "let x be an arbitrary member of X", and then prove that this x must also be a member of Y. Then say "let y be an arbitrary member of Y" and prove that it's also a member of X.

The proof of the first step will consist of a small number of implications. You can usually prove the second step just by staring at those implications until you see that they all hold in the opposite direction too.

Your first problem is much easier than that. Just use the assumptions to fill in the part I left out here:

[tex]x\in A\Rightarrow\ \underline{\hspace{2cm}}\ \Rightarrow x\in C[/tex].

A×B is the cartesian product of A and B. It's the set of all ordered pairs (a,b) such that a is in A and b is in B. "Ordered pairs" can be defined using sets. (Sets can't be ordered, since two sets are equal if and only if they have the same members. That axiom implies that {a,b}={b,a}). The standard definition is (a,b)={a,{a,b}} (but you probably don't need to know that).
 
Last edited:
OP, are you sure about that third equation?
 
Fredrik said:
A×B is the cartesian product of A and B. It's the set of all ordered pairs (a,b) such that a is in A and b is in B. "Ordered pairs" can be defined using sets. (Sets can't be ordered, since two sets are equal if and only if they have the same members. That axiom implies that {a,b}={b,a}). The standard definition is (a,b)={a,{a,b}} (but you probably don't need to know that).

It's more commonly defined as (a,b) = {{a},{a,b}} as we can prove the characteristic property of ordered pairs ( (a,b) = (c,d) iff a=c, b=d ) without invoking the Axiom of Foundation, and to avoid ambiguities such as 2 = {0, 1} = {0, {0}} = (0,0).
 
Good catch Gib Z, I got a little sloppy there.

Spy, yossell is right about the third problem. The left-hand side is actually empty. (Do you see why?) Did you mean something different than what you wrote?
 
Start with the definitions. For example,
[tex]A \subseteq C[/tex] means [tex]\forall x( x \in A \Rightarrow x \in C)[/tex]

What does [tex]\forall x( x \in A \Rightarrow x \in C)[/tex] mean?

As Fredrik pointed out, you start with [tex]x \in A[/tex] and derive [tex]x \in C[/tex], that is you show [tex]( x \in A \Rightarrow x \in C)[/tex]

See also:
Basics of Set
Mathematical Reasoning
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K