My book says the converse of the following implication is false:
are sets such that and , then .
Although , I don't understand why since the above implication still can be true under special circumstances.
For exmple, When and or when or , I still can make it true.
I think is not always true. Am I missing something?
The implication is not a problem, but the converse.
Plato showed the condition for which when it's false. I thought of an empty set on each side of the inclusion, but never thought of having only one emptyset for the leftside while keeping the rightside nonempty.
This is example or over focusing to the point that I loss the entire picture.