Proving Equality of Sets - A Quick Question

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jgens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods for proving the equality of sets, specifically the equality A ∪ (B ∪ C) = (A ∪ B) ∪ C. Participants explore whether it is sufficient to demonstrate that both sets contain the same elements or if a more formal subset proof is necessary.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if it is enough to show that both sets consist of all elements x such that x ∈ A, x ∈ B, or x ∈ C, or if a formal subset proof is required.
  • Another participant advocates for the subset method, suggesting it is the more rigorous approach.
  • A different participant proposes a proof by cases, starting from the left-hand side and then the right-hand side.
  • One participant asserts that since two sets are equal if they have the same members, the first method is valid, but acknowledges that more complex problems may complicate this approach.
  • Another participant draws a parallel between set theory and logic, providing a detailed proof using logical equivalences to demonstrate the equality of the sets.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the sufficiency of the intuitive method versus the formal subset proof. There is no consensus on which method is preferable, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that while the intuitive method may seem valid, it could become cumbersome for more complex set equalities, highlighting the importance of clarity in defining membership conditions.

jgens
Gold Member
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
50
I just have a very quick (and simple) question: When trying to prove equalities like [itex]A \cup (B \cup C) = (A \cup B) \cup C[/itex], is it sufficient to note that both sets consist of all elements [itex]x[/itex] such that [itex]x \in A[/itex], [itex]x \in B[/itex] or [itex]x \in C[/itex]? 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:
[tex]P\vee(Q\vee R)\equiv(P\vee Q)\vee R[/tex].

So my preferred proof would be:

[tex]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[/tex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
469
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K