Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - Interesting Proof for Sets

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    225

    Interesting Proof for Sets

    If C is a subset of A and D is a subset of B, prove D-A is a subset of B-C.

    I'm not sure how to do this. I know that I need to prove that every element in D-A is also in B-C, but how?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by veronicak5678 View Post
    If C is a subset of A and D is a subset of B, prove D-A is a subset of B-C.

    I'm not sure how to do this. I know that I need to prove that every element in D-A is also in B-C, but how?
    So, you know what you want to get to, so just start, and follow your nose. where did you get stuck?

    We need to show that \displaystyle x \in (D - A) \implies x \in (B - C), so...

    Assume \displaystyle x \in (D - A). Then, \displaystyle x \in D but \displaystyle x \not \in A. But \displaystyle C \subseteq A and so \displaystyle x \in C \implies x \in A, or equivalently, by the contrapositive, \displaystyle x \not \in A \implies x \not \in C. Thus we have that \displaystyle x \not \in C....


    How do you think you should proceed now?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Member
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    225
    I can prove with the same logic that any x in D-A is in B because D is a subset of B. We now have x is in B, not in C, or B-C.

    Thanks for your help! Sometimes I just have trouble getting started.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by veronicak5678 View Post
    I can prove with the same logic that any x in D-A is in B because D is a subset of B. We now have x is in B, not in C, or B-C.

    Thanks for your help! Sometimes I just have trouble getting started.
    yup

    so, you knew what you needed to prove. It was an implication, \displaystyle P \implies Q. Those you can prove one of three ways.

    Directly: Assume \displaystyle P and show \displaystyle Q follows.

    By the contrapositive (prove \displaystyle \sim Q \implies \sim P): Assume \displaystyle \sim Q and show \displaystyle \sim P follows.

    By contradiction: Assume \displaystyle P \wedge \sim Q is true, and show that a contradiction arises.

    With set proofs like this, i find that the direct proof is often the best way to go. So just assume the antecedent is true (the first statement in the implication, the P), and try to get to the consequent (the Q). So that's how you'd start if you don't know what to do. just jump in and hope for the best.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Very interesting question about sets
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 21st 2010, 03:19 PM
  2. interesting combinatorial identity proof
    Posted in the Math Challenge Problems Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 29th 2009, 04:34 PM
  3. Interesting Graph Theory Proof
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 20th 2008, 03:59 PM
  4. Help! Proof with Sets
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 7th 2008, 05:38 PM
  5. Interesting trig. proof
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 1st 2007, 08:36 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum