Proving A ⊆ B using Set Theory

In summary, to prove A \subseteq B \Leftrightarrow A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset, we first start by assuming A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset. Then, by definition of intersection, we know that if x is in A and x is not in B complement, then x must be in B. Therefore, we can conclude that A \subseteq B. Conversely, if A \subseteq B, then for any x in A, x must also be in B. This means that there cannot be any element in both A and B complement, leading to A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset. Thus, the two statements are equivalent.
  • #1
glebovg
164
1
How would I prove [itex]A \subseteq B \Leftrightarrow A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset[/itex] ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is what I have so far:

Suppose [itex]A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset[/itex]. Let [itex]x \in A[/itex]. We want to show [itex]x \in B[/itex]. Since [itex]A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset[/itex] and [itex]x \in A[/itex] then [itex]x \notin B^{c}[/itex]. Hence [itex]x \in B[/itex].
 
  • #3
Why not start by assuming either side of the two way implication, rather than assuming something completely different?
 
  • #4
It is supposed to be [itex]A \subseteq B \Leftrightarrow A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset[/itex].
 
  • #5
Ok, then what you've got is a good start. Now work it the other direction.
 
  • #6
So ([itex]\Rightarrow[/itex]) is correct? First, I suppose [itex]A \subseteq B[/itex]. Then I let [itex]x \in A[/itex] and therefore [itex]x \in B[/itex] by supposition, but then it does not lead me anywhere.
 
  • #7
Can something be in B and B complement?
 
  • #8
[itex]\emptyset[/itex] ?
 
  • #9
Also, we know [itex]\emptyset \subseteq A \cap B^{c}[/itex] and we want to show [itex]A \cap B^{c} \subseteq \emptyset[/itex], but I do not know how to do it.
 
  • #10
glebovg said:
[itex]\emptyset[/itex] ?

Can there be any element in B and B complement?
 
  • #11
No, that would be a contradiction.
 
  • #12
glebovg said:
No, that would be a contradiction.

The rest should follow. Can't think of another hint that isn't the complete answer.
 
  • #13
Is this correct?

Suppose [itex]A \subseteq B[/itex]. Let [itex]x \in A[/itex]. Then [itex]x \in B \because A \subseteq B[/itex]. [itex]A \cap B^{c} \Rightarrow x \in A[/itex] and [itex]x \in B^{c}[/itex] by definition of intersection. Since [itex]x \in B[/itex], [itex]A \cap B^{c} = \emptyset[/itex].
 
  • #14
Ok, but you can tighten up the the argument. If x in A, then x in B, then x not in B complement; then A intersect B complement is empty.
 

FAQ: Proving A ⊆ B using Set Theory

What does it mean to prove A ⊆ B via Set Theory?

To prove A ⊆ B means to show that every element in set A is also an element of set B. This can be done using the principles and definitions of Set Theory.

How do you prove A ⊆ B using Set Theory?

To prove A ⊆ B, you can use one of two methods: direct proof or contradiction. In a direct proof, you show that for every element in set A, it is also in set B. In a proof by contradiction, you assume that there is an element in set A that is not in set B, and then show that this leads to a contradiction, proving that the assumption was false.

Can you give an example of proving A ⊆ B using Set Theory?

Sure, let's say we have two sets A = {1, 2, 3} and B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. To prove A ⊆ B, we can use a direct proof by showing that every element in set A (1, 2, and 3) is also in set B.

What is the importance of proving A ⊆ B in Set Theory?

Proving A ⊆ B is important because it allows us to understand the relationship between two sets and how their elements are related. It also helps us to make logical conclusions about other properties and operations of sets.

Can you prove A ⊆ B without using Set Theory?

No, Set Theory is essential in proving A ⊆ B. It provides us with the definitions and principles that allow us to make logical conclusions about sets and their elements. Without Set Theory, we would not have a formal way to prove that one set is a subset of another.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top