- Given the two formulas:
Identify which one is always correct and which one is sometimes wrong, and prove the result.
- Give an additional condition for the incorrect formula to be always true.
- The formula
is false in general.
- To make the first formula in part (a) always correct, we add the condition that
. The claim is then:
If, then
.
Proof. Letbe any element in
, then
and
. But,
means that
or
(since this is the negation of
which means
and
, so its negation is
or
). So, if
, then
and hence
. On the other hand, if
, then
as well. Hence,
.
For the reverse inclusion, let. Then
or
. If
, then
and
. Since,
, then we know
(since every
must be in
). Therefore,
. On the other hand, if
, then since
(by our additional hypothesis) we know
. Further, since
, we know
. Therefore,
. So,
.
Therefore, indeed,.∎
Proof. Let
Then,
Thus, the formula does not hold in this counterexample.∎
The formula is correct.
Proof. Let be any element of
. This means
and
, which in turn means
and
. Since
and
we have
. Then, since
, we have
. Thus,
.
For the reverse inclusion, let be any element of
. This gives us
and
. The first part in turn gives us
and
. But then we have
in neither
nor
; hence,
. Since
, we then have
. Therefore,
.
Therefore, .∎
for x in A-(B-C), how come is that equivalent to x in (A-B)UC being that the first affirmation says that x is in A necessarily and the second one means that x is either in C or A but not in B?
for example if A={1,2,3,4} B={2,3,4} and C={3,4,5}
A-(B-C) = A-{2} = {1,3,4} (i.e. (A-B)U(A⋂C))
while when you say
(A-B)UC = {1}UC = {1,3,4,5} (but 5 does not belong to A)
which is the whole point of this affirmation being wrong in the first place