Prove:
and an example where inclusion is strict
and an example where inclusion is strict
I'm not understanding the composition of the intersection
The way both of those are written makes totally meaningless.
Look at the way I used parentheses in post #2.
Without parentheses there is no way to know what goes with what.
In the second one it makes no sense to have in it.
If you cannot provide a readable question, the we cannot help.
Now here is the proof of a standard question.
If then .
That also means .
Or .