makarov , I was looking at this and I am not convinced why is same

as .

The first part just means that whenever , , that z has to be an empty set. But the second part means

can you comment ?

Printable View

- July 23rd 2011, 09:26 AMissacnewtonRe: problem involving families of sets
- July 23rd 2011, 01:40 PMemakarovRe: problem involving families of sets
Both and start in the same way. As far as the end goes, .

- July 25th 2011, 07:32 AMissacnewtonRe: problem involving families of sets
Hi

I think I realised my mistake. What I actually proved was

as was pointed out by makarov. I was confused by the consequent

part. Lets put it separately.

lets call

for the purpose of brevity. so above implication is

so when , and if we let

then both antecedent and consequent are

TRUE and all is well. But in other case when and if we let then antecedent is FALSE but consequent is TRUE . Though

in both case the implication itself is TRUE. I think that was the

source of confusion.

Thanks everybody