2024-12-22

919: Set Minus (Set Minus Set) Is Not Necessarily but Contains (1st Set Minus 2nd Set) Minus 3rd Set

<The previous article in this series | The table of contents of this series | The next article in this series>

description/proof of that set minus (set minus set) is not necessarily but contains (1st set minus 2nd set) minus 3rd set

Topics


About: set

The table of contents of this article


Starting Context



Target Context


  • The reader will have a description and a proof of the proposition that any set minus (any set minus any set) is not necessarily equal to but contains (the 1st set minus the 2nd set) minus the 3rd set.

Orientation


There is a list of definitions discussed so far in this site.

There is a list of propositions discussed so far in this site.


Main Body


1: Structured Description


Here is the rules of Structured Description.

Entities:
S1: { the sets }
S2: { the sets }
S3: { the sets }
//

Statements:
not necessarily S1(S2S3)=(S1S2)S3

(S1S2)S3S1(S2S3)
//


2: Natural Language Description


For any sets, S1,S2,S3, S1(S2S3) is not necessarily (S1S2)S3, but (S1S2)S3S1(S2S3).


3: Proof


Whole Strategy: Step 1: see an example that S1(S2S3)(S1S2)S3; Step 2: see that (S1S2)S3S1(S2S3).

Step 1:

For the 1st part, a counterexample suffices.

Let S1={0,1},S2=,S3={0}. Then, S1(S2S3)={0,1}={0,1}; (S1S2)S3={0,1}{0}={1}.

Step 2:

For the 2nd part, for any p(S1S2)S3, pS1, pS2, so, pS2S3, so, pS1(S2S3).


References


<The previous article in this series | The table of contents of this series | The next article in this series>