MHB Union or Intersection for f(x)=0 When x in A and B

Click For Summary
When analyzing the function f(x)=0 for all x in sets A and B, it is concluded that f(x)=0 for all x in A∪B. The reasoning is that if a condition holds for every element in both sets, it must also hold for the union of those sets. The discussion emphasizes clarity in notation, specifically avoiding unnecessary commas in mathematical expressions. The consensus is that the union is the correct interpretation, not the intersection. This conclusion reinforces the logical relationship between the sets in question.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

When we have: $f(x)=0, \forall x \in A \wedge f(x)=0, \forall x \in B$, do we conclude that $f(x)=0, \forall x \in A \cap B$ or $f(x)=0, \forall x \in A \cup B$? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't put a comma between $f(x)=0$ and $\forall x\in A$. Similarly, don't put a comma before "that".

If something holds for all $x\in A$ and all $x\in B$, then it holds for all $x\in A\cup B$.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Don't put a comma between $f(x)=0$ and $\forall x\in A$. Similarly, don't put a comma before "that".

If something holds for all $x\in A$ and all $x\in B$, then it holds for all $x\in A\cup B$.

I see... Thank you very much! (Smile)
 
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...
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