MHB Proving Set Equality: How to Show Subset Relationships?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sara jj
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
To prove set equality, it is essential to demonstrate that two sets are subsets of each other. The intersection of a finite collection of sets can be expressed as the first set minus the union of the differences between the first set and the others. Similarly, this principle applies to an infinite collection of sets. For example, to prove that sets A and B are equal, one must establish that A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A. This method effectively confirms the equality of the two sets.
Sara jj
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
1) $\cap_{i=1}^{n} A_{i}= A_{1}\setminus \cup_{i=1}^{n}(A_{1}\setminus A_{i})$

2) $\cap_{i=1}^{\infty} A_{i}= A_{1}\setminus \cup_{i=1}^{\infty}(A_{1}\setminus A_{i})$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to show that there are subsets to each other.

For example:
Let $A$ and $B$ be sets. Prove that $A=B$, ( to do that you need to show that $A \subseteq B$ and $B\subseteq A$ is true).
 
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

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
3K