Mixing
Question about the proof of distributive laws of unions
$begingroup$
My question is about the proof of the distributive laws of boolean operations, more specifically I have some trouble understanding this equality: $B cup (A_1 cap cdots cap A_n) = (B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$.
Denoting $(A_1 cap cdots cap A_n)$ by $C$, the left hand side reads as $x in B$ or $C$, that is $x$ is in at least one of $B$ and $C$.
Now, I interpret the right hand side the following way: If $x$ is not in $B$, then $x$ must be in all the $A_i$, because for each term, $x$ has to be in at least one of $B$ or $A_i$, and if $x notin B$ for one term, then $x notin B$ for all terms. That's about as far as I get, because I feel like the right hand side implies that $x$ can be in $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, which would contradict the left hand side. Like, if we look at the first term $B cup A_1$, one valid possibility is that $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1$. At the same time, for the second term, $B cup A_2$, it seems like it would be valid to say that $x$ is in $B$ but not in $A_2$, but this contradicts the left hand side, which implies that $x$ must be in every $A_i$ if it is in one of them.
So if I were given just the right hand side, $(B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$, I would say, OK, $x$ can be in $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, $x$ can be in not $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, but $x$ cannot be in not $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, since for every term $x$ must be in at least $B$ or $A_i$. And then finally, the part which seems irreconcilable with the left hand side of the equation at the top: $x$ can be in $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
elementary-set-theory proof-explanation
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is about the proof of the distributive laws of boolean operations, more specifically I have some trouble understanding this equality: $B cup (A_1 cap cdots cap A_n) = (B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$.
Denoting $(A_1 cap cdots cap A_n)$ by $C$, the left hand side reads as $x in B$ or $C$, that is $x$ is in at least one of $B$ and $C$.
Now, I interpret the right hand side the following way: If $x$ is not in $B$, then $x$ must be in all the $A_i$, because for each term, $x$ has to be in at least one of $B$ or $A_i$, and if $x notin B$ for one term, then $x notin B$ for all terms. That's about as far as I get, because I feel like the right hand side implies that $x$ can be in $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, which would contradict the left hand side. Like, if we look at the first term $B cup A_1$, one valid possibility is that $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1$. At the same time, for the second term, $B cup A_2$, it seems like it would be valid to say that $x$ is in $B$ but not in $A_2$, but this contradicts the left hand side, which implies that $x$ must be in every $A_i$ if it is in one of them.
So if I were given just the right hand side, $(B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$, I would say, OK, $x$ can be in $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, $x$ can be in not $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, but $x$ cannot be in not $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, since for every term $x$ must be in at least $B$ or $A_i$. And then finally, the part which seems irreconcilable with the left hand side of the equation at the top: $x$ can be in $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
elementary-set-theory proof-explanation
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My question is about the proof of the distributive laws of boolean operations, more specifically I have some trouble understanding this equality: $B cup (A_1 cap cdots cap A_n) = (B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$.
Denoting $(A_1 cap cdots cap A_n)$ by $C$, the left hand side reads as $x in B$ or $C$, that is $x$ is in at least one of $B$ and $C$.
Now, I interpret the right hand side the following way: If $x$ is not in $B$, then $x$ must be in all the $A_i$, because for each term, $x$ has to be in at least one of $B$ or $A_i$, and if $x notin B$ for one term, then $x notin B$ for all terms. That's about as far as I get, because I feel like the right hand side implies that $x$ can be in $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, which would contradict the left hand side. Like, if we look at the first term $B cup A_1$, one valid possibility is that $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1$. At the same time, for the second term, $B cup A_2$, it seems like it would be valid to say that $x$ is in $B$ but not in $A_2$, but this contradicts the left hand side, which implies that $x$ must be in every $A_i$ if it is in one of them.
So if I were given just the right hand side, $(B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$, I would say, OK, $x$ can be in $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, $x$ can be in not $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, but $x$ cannot be in not $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, since for every term $x$ must be in at least $B$ or $A_i$. And then finally, the part which seems irreconcilable with the left hand side of the equation at the top: $x$ can be in $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
elementary-set-theory proof-explanation
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
$endgroup$
My question is about the proof of the distributive laws of boolean operations, more specifically I have some trouble understanding this equality: $B cup (A_1 cap cdots cap A_n) = (B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$.
Denoting $(A_1 cap cdots cap A_n)$ by $C$, the left hand side reads as $x in B$ or $C$, that is $x$ is in at least one of $B$ and $C$.
Now, I interpret the right hand side the following way: If $x$ is not in $B$, then $x$ must be in all the $A_i$, because for each term, $x$ has to be in at least one of $B$ or $A_i$, and if $x notin B$ for one term, then $x notin B$ for all terms. That's about as far as I get, because I feel like the right hand side implies that $x$ can be in $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, which would contradict the left hand side. Like, if we look at the first term $B cup A_1$, one valid possibility is that $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1$. At the same time, for the second term, $B cup A_2$, it seems like it would be valid to say that $x$ is in $B$ but not in $A_2$, but this contradicts the left hand side, which implies that $x$ must be in every $A_i$ if it is in one of them.
So if I were given just the right hand side, $(B cup A_1) cap cdots cap (B cup A_n)$, I would say, OK, $x$ can be in $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, $x$ can be in not $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, but $x$ cannot be in not $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, since for every term $x$ must be in at least $B$ or $A_i$. And then finally, the part which seems irreconcilable with the left hand side of the equation at the top: $x$ can be in $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
elementary-set-theory proof-explanation
elementary-set-theory proof-explanation
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
edited Jan 28 at 11:48
goblinb
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
asked Jan 28 at 11:15
goblinbgoblinb
795
795
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your interpretation of RHS is okay ("if $x$ is not in $B$ then $x$ must be in all $A_i$").
Also if $x$ is an element of the RHS then $x$ can indeed be an element of $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
This however does not contradict that $x$ is an element of the LHS (as you seem to think). Every element that is in $B$ is an element of the LHS simply because $B$ is a subset of the LHS, and the question whether $x$ is an element of some, none or all of the $A_i$ is not relevant.
Observe that the LHS can be interpretated exactly the same as RHS: $x$ is an element of LHS if it is an element of $B$ or is an element $A_i$ for some $iin{1,dots,n}$.
Does this help?
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) = (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B).
Proof.
x in A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) iff x in A or x in B $cap$ C
if x in A or (x in B and x in C)
iff (x in A or x in B) and (x in A or x in B)
iff x in A $cup$ B and x in A $cup$ B
iff x in (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B)
By induction this proof can be extended to any finite number of intersections.
If C is any collection of sets, then
A $cup$ $cap$C = $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
Proof.
x in A $cup$ $cap$C iff x in A or x in $cap$C
iff x in A or for all X in C, x in X
iff for all X in C, (x in A or x in X)
iff for all x in C, x in A $cup$ X
iff x in $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3090728%2fquestion-about-the-proof-of-distributive-laws-of-unions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your interpretation of RHS is okay ("if $x$ is not in $B$ then $x$ must be in all $A_i$").
Also if $x$ is an element of the RHS then $x$ can indeed be an element of $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
This however does not contradict that $x$ is an element of the LHS (as you seem to think). Every element that is in $B$ is an element of the LHS simply because $B$ is a subset of the LHS, and the question whether $x$ is an element of some, none or all of the $A_i$ is not relevant.
Observe that the LHS can be interpretated exactly the same as RHS: $x$ is an element of LHS if it is an element of $B$ or is an element $A_i$ for some $iin{1,dots,n}$.
Does this help?
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your interpretation of RHS is okay ("if $x$ is not in $B$ then $x$ must be in all $A_i$").
Also if $x$ is an element of the RHS then $x$ can indeed be an element of $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
This however does not contradict that $x$ is an element of the LHS (as you seem to think). Every element that is in $B$ is an element of the LHS simply because $B$ is a subset of the LHS, and the question whether $x$ is an element of some, none or all of the $A_i$ is not relevant.
Observe that the LHS can be interpretated exactly the same as RHS: $x$ is an element of LHS if it is an element of $B$ or is an element $A_i$ for some $iin{1,dots,n}$.
Does this help?
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your interpretation of RHS is okay ("if $x$ is not in $B$ then $x$ must be in all $A_i$").
Also if $x$ is an element of the RHS then $x$ can indeed be an element of $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
This however does not contradict that $x$ is an element of the LHS (as you seem to think). Every element that is in $B$ is an element of the LHS simply because $B$ is a subset of the LHS, and the question whether $x$ is an element of some, none or all of the $A_i$ is not relevant.
Observe that the LHS can be interpretated exactly the same as RHS: $x$ is an element of LHS if it is an element of $B$ or is an element $A_i$ for some $iin{1,dots,n}$.
Does this help?
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
$endgroup$
Your interpretation of RHS is okay ("if $x$ is not in $B$ then $x$ must be in all $A_i$").
Also if $x$ is an element of the RHS then $x$ can indeed be an element of $B$ and some of the $A_i$.
This however does not contradict that $x$ is an element of the LHS (as you seem to think). Every element that is in $B$ is an element of the LHS simply because $B$ is a subset of the LHS, and the question whether $x$ is an element of some, none or all of the $A_i$ is not relevant.
Observe that the LHS can be interpretated exactly the same as RHS: $x$ is an element of LHS if it is an element of $B$ or is an element $A_i$ for some $iin{1,dots,n}$.
Does this help?
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
answered Jan 28 at 11:34
drhabdrhab
104k545136
104k545136
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS?
$endgroup$
– goblinb
Jan 28 at 12:06
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
$begingroup$
Yes, that is what I am saying.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Jan 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) = (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B).
Proof.
x in A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) iff x in A or x in B $cap$ C
if x in A or (x in B and x in C)
iff (x in A or x in B) and (x in A or x in B)
iff x in A $cup$ B and x in A $cup$ B
iff x in (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B)
By induction this proof can be extended to any finite number of intersections.
If C is any collection of sets, then
A $cup$ $cap$C = $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
Proof.
x in A $cup$ $cap$C iff x in A or x in $cap$C
iff x in A or for all X in C, x in X
iff for all X in C, (x in A or x in X)
iff for all x in C, x in A $cup$ X
iff x in $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) = (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B).
Proof.
x in A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) iff x in A or x in B $cap$ C
if x in A or (x in B and x in C)
iff (x in A or x in B) and (x in A or x in B)
iff x in A $cup$ B and x in A $cup$ B
iff x in (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B)
By induction this proof can be extended to any finite number of intersections.
If C is any collection of sets, then
A $cup$ $cap$C = $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
Proof.
x in A $cup$ $cap$C iff x in A or x in $cap$C
iff x in A or for all X in C, x in X
iff for all X in C, (x in A or x in X)
iff for all x in C, x in A $cup$ X
iff x in $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) = (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B).
Proof.
x in A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) iff x in A or x in B $cap$ C
if x in A or (x in B and x in C)
iff (x in A or x in B) and (x in A or x in B)
iff x in A $cup$ B and x in A $cup$ B
iff x in (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B)
By induction this proof can be extended to any finite number of intersections.
If C is any collection of sets, then
A $cup$ $cap$C = $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
Proof.
x in A $cup$ $cap$C iff x in A or x in $cap$C
iff x in A or for all X in C, x in X
iff for all X in C, (x in A or x in X)
iff for all x in C, x in A $cup$ X
iff x in $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
$endgroup$
A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) = (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B).
Proof.
x in A $cup$ (B $cap$ C) iff x in A or x in B $cap$ C
if x in A or (x in B and x in C)
iff (x in A or x in B) and (x in A or x in B)
iff x in A $cup$ B and x in A $cup$ B
iff x in (A $cup$ B) $cap$ (A $cup$ B)
By induction this proof can be extended to any finite number of intersections.
If C is any collection of sets, then
A $cup$ $cap$C = $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
Proof.
x in A $cup$ $cap$C iff x in A or x in $cap$C
iff x in A or for all X in C, x in X
iff for all X in C, (x in A or x in X)
iff for all x in C, x in A $cup$ X
iff x in $cap${ A $cup$ X : X in C }.
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
answered Jan 28 at 11:57
William ElliotWilliam Elliot
8,8582820
8,8582820
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3090728%2fquestion-about-the-proof-of-distributive-laws-of-unions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
