Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By emakarov

Math Help - Set Theory (help again)

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    From
    United States
    Posts
    26

    Set Theory (help again)

    Thanks for the help from the previous problem! Anyways, I just got stuck on another "All that apply" problem... These are really killing me
    I listed my logic below (Own = I just interpreted it for myself [could be wrong for all I know ], Text = I double checked with the text and found them there, and Unsure = no idea....)

    Which of the following are true? Select all that apply.



    A. Unsure
    B. True (Text)
    C. True (Text)
    D. False (Own)
    E. False (Own)
    F. Unsure
    G. True (Own)
    H. True (Own)
    I. False (Text)
    J. True (Text)
    K. True (Text)

    Thanks again!
    Last edited by PennCow; July 12th 2012 at 08:02 AM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,527
    Thanks
    773

    Re: Set Theory (help again)

    For any propositions A and B, I'll write ~A to mean the negation of A and A => B to mean "A implies B." Also, If P is a property (or predicate, such as "even" or "mortal"), I'll write P(x) to mean that x satisfies P. Therefore, ~P(x) means that x does not satisfy P.

    If A and B are propositions, then ~A => ~B does not in general imply A => B. However, ~A => ~B is equivalent to B => A. The formula ~A => ~B is called the contrapositive of B => A.

    Question A says "For every x, ~A(x) => ~B(x)." Using the information above, this is the same as "For every x, B(x) => A(x)," but not the same as "For every x, A(x) => B(x)."

    B is in fact false. If X, Y and Z are propositions, then (X or Y) => Z is equivalent ((X => Z) and (Y => Z)), but x ∈ A ∩ B does not imply that x ∈ A ∩ C.

    E is true: consider two cases, when x ∈ A and x ∈ B.

    G is false: consider x ∈ B, but x ∉ A and x ∉ C.

    I'll let someone else to do the rest, or I'll return to this later.
    Thanks from PennCow
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    From
    United States
    Posts
    26

    Re: Set Theory (help again)

    Thanks again!

    Wouldn't G be True?
    If x is in A∪B or x is in C then x is in A∪C and x is in B∪C.

    Since there is an 'or', only one of the condition needs to be met correct? That being in the case, we only use "x is in C" and not "x is in A∪B":
    When x is in C, then x is in A∪C as well as in B∪C right? I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding anything though .

    Also are A and F False?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,527
    Thanks
    773

    Re: Set Theory (help again)

    Quote Originally Posted by PennCow View Post
    Wouldn't G be True?
    If x is in A∪B or x is in C then x is in A∪C and x is in B∪C.

    Since there is an 'or', only one of the condition needs to be met correct? That being in the case, we only use "x is in C" and not "x is in A∪B"
    First, I stand by my suggestion to consider the situation where x ∈ B, but x ∉ A and x ∉ C. Second, as I said with respect to question B, (X or Y) => Z is equivalent ((X => Z) and (Y => Z)). When you are proving (X or Y) => Z, you assume X or Y and need to show Z. You don't know which of X and Y is true, only that one of them is. Therefore, you need to show Z assuming just X, and also show Z assuming just Y. In question G, you don't have the right to assume that the premise (x ∈ A ∪ B or x ∈ C) means x ∈ C. Instead, you need to show that x ∈ A ∪ C assuming just x ∈ A ∪ B and also show x ∈ A ∪ C assuming just x ∈ C. The first of these two implications is false in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by PennCow View Post
    Also are A and F False?
    As I said,
    Quote Originally Posted by emakarov View Post
    Question A says "For every x, ~A(x) => ~B(x)." Using the information above, this is the same as "For every x, B(x) => A(x)," but not the same as "For every x, A(x) => B(x)."
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2012
    From
    United States
    Posts
    26

    Re: Set Theory (help again)

    Ahh I see, thanks. Been up all night so I think I am misreading your stuff as we go... gotcha now >_<! Sorry!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Using group theory to prove results in number theory
    Posted in the Math Philosophy Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 12th 2012, 01:34 AM
  2. Textbooks on Galois Theory and Algebraic Number Theory
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 8th 2011, 06:09 PM
  3. Group Theory - Sylow Theory and simple groups
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 16th 2009, 11:10 AM
  4. k-theory
    Posted in the Advanced Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 26th 2009, 10:46 PM
  5. Problems relating Theory of Automata (Computer Theory)
    Posted in the Advanced Math Topics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 17th 2007, 09:52 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum