How can I prove [(A^B)-(B^C)]-(A^C)'=0 using contradiction?

Click For Summary
To prove the equation [(A∩B)-(B∩C)]-(A∩C)'=0 by contradiction, assume it is not equal to zero, implying there exists an element x in the left-hand side. This leads to x being in A∩B but not in B∩C, while also being in A∩C. Consequently, this results in x being in A, B, and C, which contradicts the condition that x is not in B∩C. Therefore, the assumption that the expression is not equal to zero must be false, confirming that [(A∩B)-(B∩C)]-(A∩C)'=0.
mathrocks
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to prove the following by contradiction: [(A^B)-(B^C)]-(A^C)'=0. A, B, C are sets. All I know is in order to prove by contradiction you simply set the above not equal to zero. But I don't know where to go from there.

"^" means the intersection symbol.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose

(A \cap B - B \cap C) - (A \cap C)' \neq \emptyset.

Then there is some element x \in ((A \cap B - B \cap C) - (A \cap C)'). But then

x \in A \cap B - B \cap C
x \notin (A \cap C)'

<=>

x \in A \cap B - B \cap C
x \in A \cap C

<=>

x \in A \cap B
x \notin B \cap C
x \in A \cap C

<=>

x \in A
x \in B
x \notin B \cap C
x \in A
x \in C

<=>

x \in A
x \in B
x \in C
x \notin B \cap C.

Which is a contradiction.
 
Suppose it is not zero. Then there is some element x in the set on the left side.
From the last term we infer that x is not an element of (A \cap C)&#039;, (does that ' mean the complement?) so:

x \in A, \quad \mbox{and } x \in C,

take it from there.
 
Last edited:
Ok, let's prove it by contradiction:
let's suppose that
(A^B-B^C)-(A^C)'=!0, where =! means "different to". Then, there is a element namely x such that x E(belongs to) (A^B-B^C)-(A^C)', then, xE(A^B-B^C) and xE!( not belongs to)(A^C)', then, xEA^B and xE!B^C and xEA^C, then
xEA, xEB, xEC and( xE!B or xE!C). Therefore, we have a contradiction.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K