Proving B \cup (∩Aα) ⊆ ∩(B ∪ Aα)

  • Thread starter needhelp83
  • Start date
In summary: So I would say:Suppose x is in B union (intersection of all A's)then that means, either x is in B or x is in the intersection of all A's for all A's in the family. In summary, to prove the given statement, we can use the concept of set inclusions and the fact that x is in the left-hand side expression implies it is also in the right-hand side expression. We can also use the fact that x being in the union of B and the intersection of all A's is equivalent to x being in either B or in the intersection of all A's for all A's in the family.
  • #1
needhelp83
199
0
PROBLEM:

Let the (family of sets A) = {A[tex]_{\alpha}:\alpha \in \Delta}[/tex] be a family of sets and let B be a set. Prove that [tex]B \ \cup (\bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} A_{\alpha})\subseteq \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} (B \cup A_{\alpha})[/tex]

Don't know how to do this. Trying to get any help possible. We had a similar problem as follows:
Let the (family of sets A) = {A[tex]_{\alpha}:\alpha \in \Delta}[/tex] be a family of sets and let B be a set. Prove that [tex]B \ \cup \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} A_{\alpha} = \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} (B \cup A_{\alpha})[/tex]

To prove this we used:
[tex]x \in \ B \ \cup \ \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} A_{\alpha} \ iff \ x \in B \ or \ x \in A_{\alpha} \ for \ all \ \alpha \ iff \ x \in \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} (B \cup A_{\alpha})[/tex]

Any comments. Is this the same concept?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
for the first question let x be in the LHS expression and deduce that it's also in the RHS expression.

the two questions use the same concept, but 2nd one is stronger - to prove the 2nd one you prove two inclusions, LHS is contained in RHS and RHS is contained in LHS. in the 1st one you only need to prove the the LHS is contained in the RHS.
 
  • #3
cakesama said:
for the first question let x be in the LHS expression and deduce that it's also in the RHS expression.

the two questions use the same concept, but 2nd one is stronger - to prove the 2nd one you prove two inclusions, LHS is contained in RHS and RHS is contained in LHS. in the 1st one you only need to prove the the LHS is contained in the RHS.


Let the (family of sets A) = {A[tex]_{\alpha}:\alpha \in \Delta}[/tex] be a family of sets and let B be a set. Prove that [tex]B \ \cup (\bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} A_{\alpha})\subseteq \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} (B \cup A_{\alpha})[/tex]


To prove this we used:
[tex]Suppose \ x \in \ B \ \cup \ \bigcap_{\alpha \in \Delta} A_{\alpha} \ iff \ x \in B. \ Thus \ x \ for \ all \ A \in \alpha [/tex]

Are you referring to setting it up as so?
 
  • #4
I would start by saying:

Suppose x is in B union (intersection of all A's)
then that means, either x is in B or x is in the intersection of all A's

sorry I haven't learned latex yet so I have to resort to just typing it all out

and also in your setup, are you saying let x be an element of LHS iff x is an element of B? If so, then x might not be in any of the A's.
 

FAQ: Proving B \cup (∩Aα) ⊆ ∩(B ∪ Aα)

1. What does the notation "B \cup (∩Aα) ⊆ ∩(B ∪ Aα)" mean?

The notation "B \cup (∩Aα) ⊆ ∩(B ∪ Aα)" represents a statement in set theory, which can be read as "The union of set B and the intersection of all sets in A is a subset of the intersection of set B and the union of all sets in A."

2. How do you prove the statement "B \cup (∩Aα) ⊆ ∩(B ∪ Aα)"?

The statement can be proven using the concept of set inclusion. This means showing that every element in the left-hand side of the statement is also an element of the right-hand side. This can be done by assuming an arbitrary element x is in B \cup (∩Aα) and then showing that it is also in ∩(B ∪ Aα) using logical steps and the properties of sets.

3. What does it mean for one set to be a subset of another set?

A set A is a subset of set B if all elements of A are also elements of B. This means that A is contained within B and that B may have additional elements that are not in A.

4. Why is it important to prove statements in set theory?

Proving statements in set theory allows us to establish logical relationships between sets and to make conclusions based on these relationships. It also helps us to better understand the properties of sets and how they relate to one another.

5. Are there any real-life applications of proving statements in set theory?

Yes, set theory is used in many fields such as computer science, statistics, and economics. For example, in computer science, set theory is used to analyze algorithms and data structures. In statistics, set theory is used to define events and outcomes in probability theory. In economics, set theory is used to model relationships between different economic variables.

Back
Top