Proving image of intersection?

So what is F?In summary, the statement states that if F is a relation from X to Y and A and B are subsets of X, then the image of the intersection of A and B under F is a subset of the intersection of the images of A and B under F. The attempt at a solution involved showing that if an element is in the image of the intersection, then it is also in the intersection of the images. However, it is not necessarily true that the intersection of images is a subset of the image of the intersection, as it may not hold for all elements.
  • #1
SithsNGiggles
186
0

Homework Statement



Let F be a relation from X to Y and let A and B be subsets of X. Then,

[itex]F(A \cap B) \subseteq F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



Let [itex]y \in F(A \cap B)[/itex]. Then, [itex]\exists x \in A \cap B[/itex], so [itex]\exists x \in A[/itex] and [itex]x \in B[/itex].

Then, [itex]y \in F(A)[/itex] and [itex]y \in F(B)[/itex], so [itex]y \in F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex].

Therefore, [itex]y \in F(A \cap B) \Rightarrow y \in F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex], and hence, [itex]F(A \cap B) \subseteq F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex].

I'm having trouble showing that the right side is not a subset of the left. Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
SithsNGiggles said:

Homework Statement



Let F be a relation from X to Y and let A and B be subsets of X. Then,

[itex]F(A \cap B) \subseteq F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



Let [itex]y \in F(A \cap B)[/itex]. Then, [itex]\exists x \in A \cap B[/itex], so [itex]\exists x \in A[/itex] and [itex]x \in B[/itex].
[itex]\exists x \in A\cap B[/itex] such that F(x)= y. You might want to say that!

Then, [itex]y \in F(A)[/itex] and [itex]y \in F(B)[/itex], so [itex]y \in F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex].

Therefore, [itex]y \in F(A \cap B) \Rightarrow y \in F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex], and hence, [itex]F(A \cap B) \subseteq F(A) \cap F(B)[/itex].

I'm having trouble showing that the right side is not a subset of the left. Thanks for any help.
That's because it may not be true! That's the reason for the "[itex]\subseteq[/itex]" rather than just "[itex]\subset[/itex]".
 
  • #3
HallsofIvy said:
[itex]\exists x \in A\cap B[/itex] such that F(x)= y. You might want to say that!

This is actually the second part of the problem I'm on. The previous one was about the image of a union being equal to the union of the images. I mentioned your suggestion in that part.

HallsofIvy said:
That's because it may not be true! That's the reason for the "[itex]\subseteq[/itex]" rather than just "[itex]\subset[/itex]".

I understand that. I have to show that it's NOT a subset of the left hand side. I just don't know how to do that using the kind of logic I used in proving the left side was a subset of the right.
 
  • #4
And I will say again that you can't prove that- it is not true- unless you mean proper subset.
 

FAQ: Proving image of intersection?

How do you prove the image of an intersection?

To prove the image of an intersection, you can use the set theory concept of inclusion-exclusion principle. First, show that the image of the intersection is a subset of the image of the individual sets. Then, show that any element in the image of the individual sets must also be in the image of the intersection. This will prove that the image of the intersection is equal to the intersection of the images.

What is the importance of proving the image of an intersection?

Proving the image of an intersection is important in various areas of mathematics, such as topology, set theory, and algebra. It allows us to understand the structure and properties of sets and functions, and helps us in solving problems and proving theorems.

Can you prove the image of an intersection using a counterexample?

No, a counterexample cannot be used to prove the image of an intersection. A counterexample only disproves a statement, but it does not prove its validity. In order to prove the image of an intersection, a logical and rigorous proof is required.

Is proving the image of an intersection the same as proving the intersection of images?

No, they are not the same. Proving the image of an intersection shows that the image of the intersection is equal to the intersection of the images, while proving the intersection of images shows that the intersection of the images is a subset of the image of the intersection.

Are there any tips for proving the image of an intersection?

One tip is to carefully consider the definitions of the sets and functions involved, and use logical reasoning to show the equality of the two sets. Another tip is to use diagrams or visual representations to aid in understanding and proving the concept. Additionally, it is important to be familiar with the properties of sets and functions, such as inclusion-exclusion principle, to help in the proof.

Similar threads

Back
Top