Proving equivalence for a collection of subsets?

In summary, we are asked to prove that if {S\alpha}\alpha\inI is a collection of subsets of Y, then f-1(\cup\alpha\inIS\alpha)=\cup\alpha\inIf-1(S\alpha). This can be done by showing set inclusion both ways. To begin, we consider a particular element x in f-1(\cup\alpha\inIS\alpha). This means that f(x) is in the union of the subsets, and therefore must be in at least one particular subset, which we can call S_a. This means that x is in the preimage of S_a. By considering all possible subsets, we can take the union of all x values in
  • #1
SMA_01
218
0

Homework Statement


Let f:X→Y where X and Y are sets. Prove that if {S[itex]\alpha[/itex]}[itex]\alpha\in[/itex]I is a collection of subsets of Y, then f-1([itex]\cup[/itex][itex]\alpha\in[/itex]IS[itex]\alpha[/itex])=[itex]\cup[/itex][itex]\alpha\in[/itex]If-1(S[itex]\alpha[/itex])


Would I prove this by showing set inclusion both ways? And any hints on how to begin?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
SMA_01 said:

Homework Statement


Let f:X→Y where X and Y are sets. Prove that if {S[itex]\alpha[/itex]}[itex]\alpha\in[/itex]I is a collection of subsets of Y, then f-1([itex]\cup[/itex][itex]\alpha\in[/itex]IS[itex]\alpha[/itex])=[itex]\cup[/itex][itex]\alpha\in[/itex]If-1(S[itex]\alpha[/itex])

Would I prove this by showing set inclusion both ways? And any hints on how to begin?

Thanks.
OK. So if [itex]\displaystyle x\in f^{-1}\left(\cup_{\alpha\in I}\,S_\alpha \right)[/itex], what does that say?
 
  • #3
SammyS said:
OK. So if [itex]\displaystyle x\in f^{-1}\left(\cup_{\alpha\in I}\,S_\alpha \right)[/itex], what does that say?

That f(x) is in the union of the subsets?
 
  • #4
SMA_01 said:
That f(x) is in the union of the subsets?
and that means ...
 
  • #5
This is what I'm thinking:
If you take [itex]\cup[/itex]S[itex]\alpha[/itex] in Y, then that's the collection of subsets of Y, and "map" it back to X, then it would include every x in X such that f(x) is in one of the subsets, correct?
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the other side of the equivalence correctly, but here's my attempt: If I take a particular S[itex]\alpha[/itex] and I map it back to X, then that will encompass every x value such that f(x) is in that particular subset. Then, I do this for each S[itex]\alpha[/itex] and take the union of all the x values in the preimage...is this a correct line of thinking?
 
  • #6
SammyS said:
and that means ...

That f(x) must be in at least one particular subset...?
 
  • #7
SMA_01 said:
That f(x) must be in at least one particular subset...?

How about giving that subset a name, say, [itex]S_a[/itex]? Now, if [itex]f(x)\in S_a[/itex], where does [itex]x[/itex] lie?
 
  • #8
Michael Redei said:
How about giving that subset a name, say, [itex]S_a[/itex]? Now, if [itex]f(x)\in S_a[/itex], where does [itex]x[/itex] lie?

Then x would be in the preimage of S[itex]\alpha[/itex]?
 
  • #9
Okay, I see how this shows the left-hand side of the equivalence is a subset of the right-hand side. But when writing my proof, will I have to generalize it so that f(x) can be in more than one S[itex]\alpha[/itex]?
 
  • #10
No, one is enough. If some element ##e\in S_k##, then ##e\in\bigcup_{k\in I}S_k##.
 
  • #11
Michael Redei said:
How about giving that subset a name, say, [itex]S_a[/itex]? Now, if [itex]f(x)\in S_a[/itex], where does [itex]x[/itex] lie?
I would be inclined to say, [itex]\displaystyle \dots\text{ "then }f(x)\in S_{\alpha_0}\,, \text{ for some }\alpha_0\in I/ .\text{"}[/itex]
 
  • #12
Got it, thank you both for your help!
 

1. What does it mean to prove equivalence for a collection of subsets?

Proving equivalence for a collection of subsets means showing that two or more sets have the same elements. This can be done by showing that the sets are subsets of each other, meaning that all the elements in one set are also found in the other set.

2. Why is it important to prove equivalence for a collection of subsets?

Proving equivalence for a collection of subsets is important because it allows us to understand the relationships between different sets. It also helps us to determine if two sets are equal or if one set is a proper subset of the other.

3. What are some common methods used to prove equivalence for a collection of subsets?

Some common methods for proving equivalence for a collection of subsets include set notation, Venn diagrams, and mathematical proofs. These methods involve showing that the sets have the same elements or that they satisfy the same conditions.

4. Can equivalence be proven for an infinite collection of subsets?

Yes, equivalence can be proven for an infinite collection of subsets. This can be done by showing that all the elements in one set are also found in the other set, even if the sets contain an infinite number of elements.

5. Are there any real-world applications of proving equivalence for a collection of subsets?

Yes, proving equivalence for a collection of subsets has real-world applications in various fields such as computer science, statistics, and economics. For example, in computer science, equivalence of sets is important for analyzing algorithms and data structures. In statistics, equivalence of sets is used to compare different treatments or groups in a study. In economics, equivalence of sets is used to compare different market conditions or policies.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
520
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
353
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
881
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
503
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
617
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
762
Back
Top