Undergrad Sets, Subsets, Possible Relations

Click For Summary
The discussion explores the relationships between subsets of a given set and the calculations of their possible relations. For a set with one element, there are two subsets, resulting in four possible relations and three true relations. As the number of elements increases, the number of subsets grows exponentially, leading to a significant increase in possible relations. The pattern suggests that for a set with n elements, the number of true possible relations can be expressed as 3^n, aligning with the binomial expansion of (2+1)^n. The conclusion indicates that while induction could confirm the findings, the observed pattern provides a valid basis for the calculations.
Figaro
Messages
103
Reaction score
7
Given a set, there are subsets and possible relations between those arbitrary subsets. For a given example set, the possible relation between the subsets of the example set will narrow down to the "true" possible relations between those subsets.

a) {1}
Number of Subsets: ##2^1 = 2## (∅, {1}) where the power means how many elements

Number of Possible Relations (suppose those two subsets A and B are arbitrary): ##2^2 = 4## (A⊆A, A⊆B, B⊆B, B⊆A) where the base is 2 since there are two subsets and the power is 2 since there are two possible ways to relate each pair.

Number of "True" Possible Relations: 3 (∅⊆∅, ∅⊆{1}, {1}⊆{1})

b) {1,2}
Number of Subsets: ##2^2 = 4##

Number of Possible Relations (suppose those two subsets A and B are arbitrary): ##4^2 = 16##

Number of "True" Possible Relations: 9

c) {1,2,3}
Number of Subsets: ##2^3 = 8##

Number of Possible Relations (suppose those two subsets A and B are arbitrary): ##8^2 = 64##

Number of "True" Possible Relations: 27

d) {1,2,3, ..., n}
Number of Subsets: ##2^n##

Number of Possible Relations (suppose those two subsets A and B are arbitrary): ##(2^n)^2 = 2^{2n}##

Number of "True" Possible Relations: ##3^n##

Part d) is guesswork. So is part d) correct by the pattern that is given in part a)-c)? I know that I need to do induction in order to formally say that IT is correct but the question is if I can guess by the pattern.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a set with n elements, you have
- 1 subset with 0 elements, leading to 2n true possible relations
- n subsets with 1 element, leading to n*2n-1 true possible relations
- ...
- 1 subset with n elements, leading to 1 possible relation.

This is the binomial expansion of (2+1)n. No need to use induction.
 
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 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K