MHB Write ⊆ or ∈ in the space provided: {Please Check My Solution}

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannaBe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the correct usage of the symbols ⊆ (subset) and ∈ (element) in set theory. The provided solutions indicate that N is an element of ℚ and P(R), while the empty set ∅ is a subset of Z, and √2 is a subset of R. Participants clarify the definitions, stating that a subset contains all elements of another set, while an element is a member of a set. The conversation also prompts a question about whether N is considered a set or an element. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately interpreting set relationships.
WannaBe
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Question:
Write ⊆ or ∈ in the space provided:
N _______ ℚ
N _______ P(R)
∅ _______ Z
√ 2 _______ R

Solution:
N ∈ ℚ
N ∈ P(R)
∅ ⊆ Z
√ 2 ⊆ R
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you state what $\subseteq$ and $\in$ means?
 
MarkFL said:
Can you state what $\subseteq$ and $\in$ means?
⊆ = Subset
∈ = Element

Definition:

If all the elements of a set is contained in ANOTHER set, then the set whose elements are contained in another set is a subset.
Ex. Set A 's elements= 1,2,3 Set B's elements= 1,2,3,4,5 so... that means all the elements of Set A are in Set B, so A ⊆ B.
 
Good! :D

So, in reference to the first part of the question, is $\mathbb{N}$ a set or an element?
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Back
Top