Why is my proof of this set identity incorrect?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the incorrect proof of a set identity involving subsets A and B. The user mistakenly assumes that operations in set algebra can be treated similarly to those in traditional algebra, leading to erroneous conclusions such as A = A and A = B. Key points include the importance of using reversible steps in proofs and the distinction between algebraic and set operations. The conversation emphasizes that operations like union and intersection do not allow for the same conclusions as their algebraic counterparts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory concepts, including union and intersection.
  • Familiarity with algebraic proof techniques and their limitations in set algebra.
  • Knowledge of the absorption law and set difference law.
  • Experience with logical reasoning in mathematical proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of set operations, focusing on reversible and non-reversible steps.
  • Learn about the absorption law and set difference law in detail.
  • Explore examples of valid proofs in set theory to understand common pitfalls.
  • Investigate the differences between algebraic and set algebra operations.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of set theory and its proofs, particularly those transitioning from algebra to set algebra.

ainster31
Messages
158
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



jaLL28y.png


Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



$$A-(A\cap B)=A-B\\ A\cap (A\cap B)^{ C }=A\cap B^{ C }\quad (set\quad difference\quad law)\\ A\cup [A\cap (A\cap B)^{ C }]=A\cup [A\cap B^{ C }]\quad (applied\quad A\cup \quad to\quad both\quad sides)\\ A=A\quad (absorption \quad law)$$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Among other things, it looks like you have started with what you wanted to prove and drew the conclusion that A = A. I'm guessing that the problem wasn't to prove that A = A.
 
Also, let's take an example where A and B are any two subsets if U. Here's a proof that A = B, using your argument:

##A = B##. Union U with both sides: ##A\cup U = B\cup U##. Therefore ##U = U##. End of proof.
 
LCKurtz said:
Among other things, it looks like you have started with what you wanted to prove and drew the conclusion that A = A. I'm guessing that the problem wasn't to prove that A = A.

Well, I can just reverse the steps to fix that.

LCKurtz said:
Also, let's take an example where A and B are any two subsets if U. Here's a proof that A = B, using your argument:

##A = B##. Union U with both sides: ##A\cup U = B\cup U##. Therefore ##U = U##. End of proof.

Hmm... How come in algebra I can do operations on both sides but I can't do that in set algebra?

For example in algebra, I can do this:

4 = 4
4 + 5 = 4 + 5
9 = 9

But I can't seem to do that with set algebra?
 
ainster31 said:
Well, I can just reverse the steps to fix that.



Hmm... How come in algebra I can do operations on both sides but I can't do that in set algebra?

For example in algebra, I can do this:

4 = 4
4 + 5 = 4 + 5
9 = 9

But I can't seem to do that with set algebra?

That's right. You can't because it doesn't work that way. And even in ordinary algebra, you don't start with something you are trying to prove by assuming it is true. Then you would get arguments like this: To prove 3 = 5 start with 3 = 5. Multiply both sides by 0 and get 0 = 0. That doesn't prove 3 = 5.

In your current problem you could start with the left side and use your rules on it. You already have ##A - (A\cap B) = A \cap (A\cap B)^c##. Just keep going with it using the rules until you get an expression identical to the right side of the equation.
 
LCKurtz said:
That's right. You can't because it doesn't work that way. And even in ordinary algebra, you don't start with something you are trying to prove by assuming it is true. Then you would get arguments like this: To prove 3 = 5 start with 3 = 5. Multiply both sides by 0 and get 0 = 0. That doesn't prove 3 = 5.

I was told that you can't do that because there's no way to reverse that step, i.e. it is impossible to go from 0=0 to 3=5.

LCKurtz said:
In your current problem you could start with the left side and use your rules on it. You already have ##A - (A\cap B) = A \cap (A\cap B)^c##. Just keep going with it using the rules until you get an expression identical to the right side of the equation.

Alright. The textbook already has the answer since it's an example but I just figured I'd try to solve it like I do algebraic proofs. Is there a specific property that regular algebra has that set algebra is missing?
 
When you work backwards like that, you need reversible steps alright. In my argument:

## A = B##, ##A\cup U = B\cup U##, ##U = U##, you can't reverse the steps because given that ##A\cup U = B\cup U## that doesn't imply ##A=B##. Your argument has a similar error.
 
I see. Are there any operations that I can apply in set algebra that are reversible?
 
To add another point to this discussion: In algebra if you have ##a+c = b+c## you can conclude ##a=b##, and if you have ##ac = bc## you can conclude ##a=b## as long as ##c \ne 0##. You don't have similar equations for sets. That is, if you have ##A\cup C = B\cup C## you can't conclude ##A=B## and if you have ##A\cap C = B\cap C## you can't conclude ##A=B##. So cupping or capping something with both sides of an equation isn't going to give you a reversible argument.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K