Question about proof of associative law for sets

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the associative law for sets, specifically the equation (A ∪ B) ∪ C = A ∪ (B ∪ C). Luca presents an informal proof by assuming an element x belongs to the left-hand side and demonstrating it also belongs to the right-hand side, thus establishing subset relationships. A more formal proof is provided, utilizing logical equivalences to show that x is in both expressions. The consensus confirms that Luca's approach is valid, albeit informal.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory concepts, particularly unions and subsets.
  • Familiarity with logical equivalences and implications.
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical notation and proofs.
  • Experience with formal proof techniques in mathematics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study formal proofs in set theory, focusing on associative and distributive laws.
  • Learn about logical disjunction and its implications in mathematical proofs.
  • Explore additional resources on set operations and their properties.
  • Practice constructing formal proofs for various set identities and laws.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching set theory, and anyone interested in formal proof techniques in mathematical logic.

pamparana
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Trying to go through Tom Apostle text on Calculus. There is an exercise about proving the associative law for sets:

So, (A U B) U C = A U (B U C)

So, if we assume x to be an element in set in left hand side, than we can say x belongs at least to either A, B or C which in turn means that x is also an element in set in right hand side and then we can say that the LHS and RHS are subsets of each other...

Is this a valid proof? I am never sure with these. It is really tricky to prove such ideas that we take for granted in every day life!

Anyway, I would be really grateful for any help you can give this old man.

/Luca
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi pamparana,

What it comes down to is that "or" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction" for
((p or q) or r)
and
(p or (q or r))
are the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pamparana said:
Hello,

Trying to go through Tom Apostle text on Calculus. There is an exercise about proving the associative law for sets:

So, (A U B) U C = A U (B U C)

So, if we assume x to be an element in set in left hand side, than we can say x belongs at least to either A, B or C which in turn means that x is also an element in set in right hand side and then we can say that the LHS and RHS are subsets of each other...

Is this a valid proof? I am never sure with these. It is really tricky to prove such ideas that we take for granted in every day life!

Anyway, I would be really grateful for any help you can give this old man.

/Luca

You are essentially correct. (The other post is correct too, but is really a round-a-bout way to assume exactly what you want to prove). You might see the proof of your statement organized formally this way.

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> x \in (A \cup B) \cup C &amp; \leftrightarrow x \in (A \cup B) \text{ or } x \in C \\<br /> &amp; \leftrightarrow x \in A \text{ or } x \in B \text{ or } x \in C \\<br /> &amp; \leftrightarrow x \in A \text{ or } x \in (B \cup C) \\<br /> &amp; \leftrightarrow x \in A \cup (B \cup C)<br /> \end{align*}<br />

I've use \leftrightarrow to represent the phrase "if and only if" (I couldn't get the usual double arrow to work, sorry).
Hope this helps.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K