Why is my proof of this set identity incorrect?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof concerning set identities, specifically examining the validity of an argument that leads to the conclusion A = A. Participants are exploring concepts in set theory and the differences between algebraic and set operations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the validity of starting a proof with the conclusion that A = A, suggesting it does not contribute to proving the identity. Others provide examples to illustrate potential flaws in reasoning and the differences between algebraic and set operations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the nature of reversible steps in proofs and the limitations of applying algebraic reasoning to set theory. Some guidance has been offered regarding the approach to take in set proofs, but no consensus has been reached on the specific properties that differentiate algebra from set algebra.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of operations in set algebra compared to traditional algebra, particularly regarding assumptions made during proofs and the nature of reversible steps.

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
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K