Validating Set Equivalencies: A Logical Approach

  • Thread starter Sorgen
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Set
In summary, the conversation is about solving a logical equivalence problem. The missing part in the equation is determined to be (C\B), but there is uncertainty about the last step being justified. The individual working on the problem realizes a mistake in the notation and makes a correct rewrite. They then explain their reasoning for dropping certain parts of the equation, which is determined to be correct based on the definition of symmetric difference.
  • #1
Sorgen
19
0

Homework Statement


Alright so I was trying to solve this using logical equivalences:

Fill in the blanks to make true identities:
[itex] C \backslash ( A \Delta B) = (A \cap C) \Delta [/itex] ______

I made it to the end where I stated that the missing part was (C\B), but I'm not sure if my last step was justified

Homework Equations


Equivalences 3. The Attempt at a Solution [\b]

I'll skip most of the steps (there were about 9) because I suck at latex but the last few are (working from the left side):

[itex] [ ( x \in C \wedge x \in A) \wedge (x \notin A \vee x \in B) ] \vee [ (x \in C \wedge x \notin B) \wedge (x \notin A \vee x \in B) ] \\
[ (C \cap A) \cap (B \cup (x \notin A) ] \cap [ (C \backslash B) \cap (B \cup (x \notin A) ] \\
C \backslash (A \Delta B) = (A \cap C) \Delta (C \backslash B) [/itex]

So in the 2nd to last step, I dropped [tex](B \cup (x \notin A)[/tex] from both sides of the union because of the definition of symmetric difference which says that they would be dropped even if I left them in. Is this correctly justified?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Screw latex, here's a scan of my work

anyway, in the 2nd to last step I dropped (B union ...) out of both sides due to the fact that they would get dropped anyway when symmetric difference was thrown in, is this justified?
 

Attachments

  • fill in blanks....jpg
    fill in blanks....jpg
    19 KB · Views: 462
  • #3
Okay so I rewrote [itex] [ ( B \cup ( x \notin A ) ] [/itex] because I realized that notation doesn't make any sense (which I originally knew but wasn't sure how to express the -xEA part in set notation) and came up with [itex] [ B \cup ( C \backslash A ) ] [/itex] which I believe is a way of representing that in this context (where the only values we are talking about are represented in sets A B and C)

Is this rewrite correct or is there some way of representing -xEA using set notation that I don't know about?

Anyway, after plugging that in I realized that the 2nd to last line reads:
[itex] [ ( C \cap A ) \cap ( B \cup ( C \backslash A ) ] \cup [ ( C \backslash B ) \cap ( B \cup ( C \backslash A ) ] [/itex]
And because of the first part which reads [itex] [ ( C \cap A ) ][/itex], having [itex] [ (C \cap A ) \cap ( C \backslash A ) ] [/itex] is a contradiction, and because of that I can drop [itex] ( C \backslash A ) [/itex] from the equation on both sides.

Then, again because of the definition of symmetric difference (and because it's also a contradiction) I drop the [itex] \cap B[/itex] from both sides because it would be removed regardless.

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Validating Set Equivalencies: A Logical Approach

What is a set equivalency?

A set equivalency is a mathematical concept that describes when two sets have the same number of elements, or in other words, they are equal in size. This means that all the elements in one set can be matched up with all the elements in the other set without any left over.

How do you determine if two sets are equivalent?

To determine if two sets are equivalent, you can compare the number of elements in each set. If they have the same number of elements, then they are equivalent. Alternatively, you can also list out the elements in each set and see if they are exactly the same.

What is the difference between set equivalency and set equality?

Set equivalency and set equality are often used interchangeably, but they have slightly different meanings. Set equivalency means that two sets have the same number of elements, while set equality means that two sets have the same exact elements, regardless of order or repetition.

Can a set be equivalent to itself?

Yes, a set can be equivalent to itself. This is because the definition of set equivalency requires the two sets to have the same number of elements, and in this case, the set has the same number of elements as itself.

What is the importance of understanding set equivalencies?

Understanding set equivalencies is important in mathematics and other fields such as computer science and statistics. It allows us to compare and analyze sets, and it serves as the foundation for many other mathematical concepts, such as functions and relations.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
800
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top