MHB How to Correctly Diagram Set Inclusions Among P, O, S, and E?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian82784
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding set inclusions among the sets P, O, S, and E. Participants clarify that for a linear order of sets, each set must be comparable, meaning one must be a subset of the other. It is established that P and O are incomparable, as neither is a subset of the other due to differing elements. To correctly diagram the inclusions, it is advised to list all pairs of sets where one is a subset of another and arrange them accordingly, with the empty set at the bottom and the universal set at the top. Mastery of set inclusion concepts is emphasized as crucial for accurately completing the diagram.
Brian82784
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I've been trying to figure this practice problem out for a week now and I can't seem to come up with the correct diagram any help would be awesome.
 

Attachments

  • Hasse.jpg
    Hasse.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 101
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi and welcome to the forum!

Obviously, $\emptyset$ is a subset of all these sets and all sets are subsets of $U$. So, $\emptyset$ is the bottom element of the diagram and $U$ is the top one. Can you list other set inclusions among $P$, $O$, $S$ and $E$ (i.e., what is a subset of what)?
 
So this would be in a linear order?
 
I don't know why but this isn't clicking with me. I figured from the start this would be linear, but I wasn't sure.
 
Kristen said:
So this would be in a linear order?
Linear order happens when for every two sets, one is a subset of the other. Is this true for $P$ and $O$? You also have not listed inclusions...
 
You also have not listed inclusions... What do you mean by this?

So are you saying that it wouldn't be linear because P and O are not matching. P has a 2 whereas O has a 1?
 
Kristen said:
You also have not listed inclusions... What do you mean by this?
I wrote in post #2:
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Can you list other set inclusions among $P$, $O$, $S$ and $E$ (i.e., what is a subset of what)?
It's a good idea, if a response to your post is not clear, to ask questions about it right away. Otherwise we may give you a lot of recommendations and be under impression that you got them while this may not be so.

Kristen said:
So are you saying that it wouldn't be linear because P and O are not matching. P has a 2 whereas O has a 1?
You need to master the concept of set inclusion. A set $A$ is a called subset of a set $B$, and this is denoted by $A\subseteq B$, if every element of $A$ is also an element of $B$. For example, $\{1,3\}\subseteq\{1,2,3,4\}$, but $\{1,3\}\nsubseteq\{2,3,4,5\}$ because $1\in\{1,3\}$, but $1\notin\{2,3,4,5\}$. In this topic, we don't say that sets are matching; it's not a technical term.

What can be said about $P$ and $O$? Yes, $P$ has a 2 whereas $O$ has a 1, but this does not mean by itself that $P\nsubseteq O$ and $O\nsubseteq P$. Maybe $P$ also has 1 and $O$ has 2. The fact is that this is not the case: $1\in O$, but $1\notin P$, which means $O\nsubseteq P$. Similarly, $2\in P$, but $2\notin O$, so $P\nsubseteq O$. The sets $P$ and $O$ are what is called incomparable under $\subseteq$. In a linear order, meanwhile, all sets are comparable.

To finish the diagram, I suggest you write all pairs of sets among $P$, $O$, $E$ and $S$ such that the first one is a subset of the second. For example, $S\subseteq P$ and so on. Then arrange the sets so that each subset is below its superset. As has been said, $\emptyset$ is a subset of everything, so it is the bottom element in the diagram.
 
Back
Top