User Name Remember Me? Password

 Applied Math Applied Math Forum

 February 27th, 2013, 02:51 AM #1 Senior Member   Joined: Jan 2013 From: Italy Posts: 154 Thanks: 7 Some trivial proofs about sets. Hi! Here there are some theorems I have to prove. I know that they are trivial but since they are very important, I want to toggle all doubt on these fondamental things. So I will post here my development, and I would want to receive correction and suggestions from you. Thanks. Prove : If , then . 1. My development: So we have to prove the following: means that: let A, ? (empty set) are two sets, A is subset of ?, if and only if, for each element x, if x is in A, then x is in ?. But by definition, the empty set is the set containing no elements. So we have that the proposition: x is in A AND x is in ? is false. To obtain a true proposition, the set A it must have no elements. hence: (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) implies (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) AND (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) implies (x is not in ? AND x is not in A) Hence: A = ?. 2. Proof by contradiction: assume the starting theorem as false: . or better: . We have: A set called A containing an element x, and not subset of ?, it is subset of ?. And this contradicts the definition of empty set. Similarly an empty set ? with no elements it can't be subset of an non-empty set A. So the proposition I have formulated is false and the starting theorem is true. 3. Proof by contradiction: assume the starting theorem as false: . or better: . in order that A it can be subset of ?, A it must have no elements so we have: (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) implies (A is not subset of ? AND V is not subset of A) Hence, briefly we are saying that a set called A, with no elements, it is different from the empty set ?. it means that ? has some elements within. But this fact contradicts the definition of empty set ?. So the proposition I have done is false and the starting theorem is true. Another prove: If A = B, then and My development: So we have to prove that: If we consider A={x}=B so we have that the element x it is both in A and in B and viceversa. Hence: from the definition: "A it is subset of B, if and only if, for each element x, if x is in A, then x is in B". B contains only that one element x. It is valid the viceversa. I think that later I will put here the prove by contradiction. in the meantime I would want to see if my developments are right. Waiting ardently for your suggestions. Many thanks really!! March 1st, 2013, 07:32 AM   #2
Math Team

Joined: Sep 2007

Posts: 2,409
Thanks: 6

Re: Some trivial proofs about sets.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by beesee Hi! Here there are some theorems I have to prove. I know that they are trivial but since they are very important, I want to toggle all doubt on these fondamental things. So I will post here my development, and I would want to receive correction and suggestions from you. Thanks. Prove : If , then . 1. My development: So we have to prove the following: means that: let A, ? (empty set) are two sets, A is subset of ?, if and only if, for each element x, if x is in A, then x is in ?. But by definition, the empty set is the set containing no elements. So we have that the proposition: x is in A AND x is in ? is false. To obtain a true proposition, the set A it must have no elements. hence: (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) implies (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) AND (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) implies (x is not in ? AND x is not in A) Hence: A = ?.
That's rather "wordy"! If , then, since , , a contradiction.

Quote:
 2. Proof by contradiction: assume the starting theorem as false: . or better: .
No! A contradiction would be and

Quote:
 We have: A set called A containing an element x, and not subset of ?, it is subset of ?. And this contradicts the definition of empty set. Similarly an empty set ? with no elements it can't be subset of an non-empty set A. So the proposition I have formulated is false and the starting theorem is true. 3. Proof by contradiction: assume the starting theorem as false: . or better: .[quote:tzq7yvvx] Again, that is NOT the negation of the original statement. [quote:tzq7yvvx]in order that A it can be subset of ?, A it must have no elements so we have: (x is not in A AND x is not in ?) implies (A is not subset of ? AND V is not subset of A) Hence, briefly we are saying that a set called A, with no elements, it is different from the empty set ?. it means that ? has some elements within. But this fact contradicts the definition of empty set ?. So the proposition I have done is false and the starting theorem is true. Another prove: If A = B, then and My development: So we have to prove that: If we consider A={x}=B so we have that the element x it is both in A and in B and viceversa. Hence: from the definition: "A it is subset of B, if and only if, for each element x, if x is in A, then x is in B". B contains only that one element x. It is valid the viceversa. I think that later I will put here the prove by contradiction. in the meantime I would want to see if my developments are right. Waiting ardently for your suggestions. Many thanks really!!
[/quote:tzq7yvvx][/quote:tzq7yvvx] March 2nd, 2013, 02:40 AM   #3
Senior Member

Joined: Jan 2013
From: Italy

Posts: 154
Thanks: 7

Re: Some trivial proofs about sets.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by HallsofIvy Again, that is NOT the negation of the original statement.
thanks, please, can you explain me a little bit better? March 3rd, 2013, 07:03 AM #4 Math Team   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,409 Thanks: 6 Re: Some trivial proofs about sets. The negation of the statement "if A then B" is NOT "If not A then B", it is "A and not B". For example, the negation of the statement "If it rains today, I will take my umbrella" is NOT "if it does not rain today I will take my umbrella". It is "It rains today and I do not take my umbrella". March 3rd, 2013, 10:28 AM #5 Math Team   Joined: Apr 2012 Posts: 1,579 Thanks: 22 Re: Some trivial proofs about sets. Recall that A->B = -A v B. So the negations of A->B, ie -(A->B) = -(-AvB), which in turn is equivalent to A&-B. Perhaps more intuitively, the negation of a conditional is true if and only if the conditional is false. A conditional P->Q is only false if the antecedent P is true and the consequence is false. The consequence is false if and only if the negation of the consequence is true. So P->Q is false, therefore its negation true, iff P&-Q is true. Tags proofs, sets, trivial Search tags for this page
,

,

# is null set is trivial subset in mayh?

Click on a term to search for related topics.
 Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page Display Modes Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post bobbo Algebra 8 October 30th, 2013 02:31 PM Dougy Number Theory 4 October 2nd, 2012 11:16 AM Bucephalus Linear Algebra 10 January 28th, 2012 09:08 PM Agno Number Theory 4 July 19th, 2011 11:05 AM ElMarsh Real Analysis 2 December 2nd, 2009 07:42 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top

Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.      