- #1

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,051

- 18

Being logically inept (never took a class, and don't know what Rose and AKG are talking about), I've always imagined there was direct correlation to set theory, so please excuse my ignorance.

Someone tell me where this is wrong.

Let A, B, C be the following sets :

A = {2,4}

B = {2,3}

C = {1,2}

So, B&C = {2}, which is indeed a subset of A

Also, A&C = {2}, which is a subset of B

So, this example satisfies both the conditions of the premise.

However, AvB = {2,3,4}, which is not a superset of C.

A counterexample, wot ?

Or are A,B,C binary valued variables (meaning I don't have a clue what \supset and \subset are in this context) ?

Sorry, for the inconvenience. I do not wish to derail this thread, so feel free to ignore this post for now (but it would be nice to have my ignoramic queries answered in another thread perhaps).

Someone tell me where this is wrong.

Let A, B, C be the following sets :

A = {2,4}

B = {2,3}

C = {1,2}

So, B&C = {2}, which is indeed a subset of A

Also, A&C = {2}, which is a subset of B

So, this example satisfies both the conditions of the premise.

However, AvB = {2,3,4}, which is not a superset of C.

A counterexample, wot ?

Or are A,B,C binary valued variables (meaning I don't have a clue what \supset and \subset are in this context) ?

Sorry, for the inconvenience. I do not wish to derail this thread, so feel free to ignore this post for now (but it would be nice to have my ignoramic queries answered in another thread perhaps).

Last edited: