Proving Equality of Sets - A Quick Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50
I just have a very quick (and simple) question: When trying to prove equalities like A \cup (B \cup C) = (A \cup B) \cup C, is it sufficient to note that both sets consist of all elements x such that x \in A, x \in B or x \in C? Or do I need to go through proving that each set is a subset of the other and consequently deduce that the two sets are equal?

I already know that the second procedure works and although the first one seems make intuitive sense, I'm concerned that it isn't considered sufficient or formal. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would definitely go about it the second way; ie. show that each set is a subset of the other.
 
Yes. I would first assume that x is an element of the left hand side and do a prove by cases, then do the same assuming x is an element of the right hand side.
 
Alright, that's what I've been doing. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Since two sets are equal if and only if they have the same members, the first method is equally valid. But when you consider more difficult problems, it's going to be much more difficult to explicitly write down a set of conditions on x that are satisfied if and only if x is a member of the set on the left (or the set on the right).
 
The key here is to notice that this is just the 'set-theoretic translation' of the corresponding (obvious) fact from logic:
P\vee(Q\vee R)\equiv(P\vee Q)\vee R.

So my preferred proof would be:

x\in A\ \cup \ (B\ \cup \ C)\Leftrightarrow (x\in A)\ \vee \ (x\in B\ \vee \ x\in C)\Leftrightarrow(x\in A\ \cup \ B)\ \vee \ (x\in C)\Leftrightarrow x\in (A\ \cup \ B)\ \cup \ C.
 
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

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Back
Top