Proving $A in B land B subseteq C to A in C$.
$begingroup$
We are given $A in B land B subseteq C to A in C$,
how to proove that it is true for any $A,B,C$?
I am having trouble proving it correctly...
This is what i am thinking:
$A in B$ means $B{ A$, other elements from $B}$
$B subseteq C$ means $C{ A$, other elements from $B$, other elements from $C}$
$A$ belongs to $C$, so it is true.
Is this correct? and how to write every elements excluding $x$?
elementary-set-theory proof-writing
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We are given $A in B land B subseteq C to A in C$,
how to proove that it is true for any $A,B,C$?
I am having trouble proving it correctly...
This is what i am thinking:
$A in B$ means $B{ A$, other elements from $B}$
$B subseteq C$ means $C{ A$, other elements from $B$, other elements from $C}$
$A$ belongs to $C$, so it is true.
Is this correct? and how to write every elements excluding $x$?
elementary-set-theory proof-writing
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
It is okay but it would be better if you could make it more formal. Here are some ideas: if $a in B$ and $B subseteq C$, you can use the definition of $B subseteq C$ to conclude that $a in C$. What's the definition of $B subseteq C$?
$endgroup$
– Ashish K
Dec 31 '18 at 12:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We are given $A in B land B subseteq C to A in C$,
how to proove that it is true for any $A,B,C$?
I am having trouble proving it correctly...
This is what i am thinking:
$A in B$ means $B{ A$, other elements from $B}$
$B subseteq C$ means $C{ A$, other elements from $B$, other elements from $C}$
$A$ belongs to $C$, so it is true.
Is this correct? and how to write every elements excluding $x$?
elementary-set-theory proof-writing
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
$endgroup$
We are given $A in B land B subseteq C to A in C$,
how to proove that it is true for any $A,B,C$?
I am having trouble proving it correctly...
This is what i am thinking:
$A in B$ means $B{ A$, other elements from $B}$
$B subseteq C$ means $C{ A$, other elements from $B$, other elements from $C}$
$A$ belongs to $C$, so it is true.
Is this correct? and how to write every elements excluding $x$?
elementary-set-theory proof-writing
elementary-set-theory proof-writing
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
edited Jan 1 at 14:31
Edvards Zakovskis
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
asked Dec 31 '18 at 12:27
Edvards ZakovskisEdvards Zakovskis
354
354
2
$begingroup$
It is okay but it would be better if you could make it more formal. Here are some ideas: if $a in B$ and $B subseteq C$, you can use the definition of $B subseteq C$ to conclude that $a in C$. What's the definition of $B subseteq C$?
$endgroup$
– Ashish K
Dec 31 '18 at 12:31
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
It is okay but it would be better if you could make it more formal. Here are some ideas: if $a in B$ and $B subseteq C$, you can use the definition of $B subseteq C$ to conclude that $a in C$. What's the definition of $B subseteq C$?
$endgroup$
– Ashish K
Dec 31 '18 at 12:31
2
2
$begingroup$
It is okay but it would be better if you could make it more formal. Here are some ideas: if $a in B$ and $B subseteq C$, you can use the definition of $B subseteq C$ to conclude that $a in C$. What's the definition of $B subseteq C$?
$endgroup$
– Ashish K
Dec 31 '18 at 12:31
$begingroup$
It is okay but it would be better if you could make it more formal. Here are some ideas: if $a in B$ and $B subseteq C$, you can use the definition of $B subseteq C$ to conclude that $a in C$. What's the definition of $B subseteq C$?
$endgroup$
– Ashish K
Dec 31 '18 at 12:31
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your attempt at proving it is not clear to me, so I will not comment much on its accuracy. It seems like you have a rough understanding of the underlying notions though.
Suppose $Ain B$ and $Bsubseteq C$. By definition of $Bsubseteq C$, for all $bin B$, we have $bin C$. Let $b=A$. Thus $Ain C$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In set-theory $in$ is a primitive notion that has no definition.
It is just some kind of relation that two sets have or have not: $$Bin Ctext{ or }Bnotin C$$
Based on $in$ a new relation $subseteq$ is defined by stating that: $$Bsubseteq Ciff xin Ctext{ for every }xtext{ that satisfies: }xin B $$
So - by definition - if $Bsubseteq C$ then $Ain C$ is a true statement whenever $Ain B$.
This comes to the same as saying that: $$Ain Bwedge Bsubseteq Cimplies Ain C$$is a true statement.
So here a proof is actually nothing more than the application of a definition.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
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%2f3057660%2fproving-a-in-b-land-b-subseteq-c-to-a-in-c%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 attempt at proving it is not clear to me, so I will not comment much on its accuracy. It seems like you have a rough understanding of the underlying notions though.
Suppose $Ain B$ and $Bsubseteq C$. By definition of $Bsubseteq C$, for all $bin B$, we have $bin C$. Let $b=A$. Thus $Ain C$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your attempt at proving it is not clear to me, so I will not comment much on its accuracy. It seems like you have a rough understanding of the underlying notions though.
Suppose $Ain B$ and $Bsubseteq C$. By definition of $Bsubseteq C$, for all $bin B$, we have $bin C$. Let $b=A$. Thus $Ain C$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your attempt at proving it is not clear to me, so I will not comment much on its accuracy. It seems like you have a rough understanding of the underlying notions though.
Suppose $Ain B$ and $Bsubseteq C$. By definition of $Bsubseteq C$, for all $bin B$, we have $bin C$. Let $b=A$. Thus $Ain C$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
$endgroup$
Your attempt at proving it is not clear to me, so I will not comment much on its accuracy. It seems like you have a rough understanding of the underlying notions though.
Suppose $Ain B$ and $Bsubseteq C$. By definition of $Bsubseteq C$, for all $bin B$, we have $bin C$. Let $b=A$. Thus $Ain C$.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
edited Dec 31 '18 at 14:04
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:35
ShaunShaun
8,898113681
8,898113681
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In set-theory $in$ is a primitive notion that has no definition.
It is just some kind of relation that two sets have or have not: $$Bin Ctext{ or }Bnotin C$$
Based on $in$ a new relation $subseteq$ is defined by stating that: $$Bsubseteq Ciff xin Ctext{ for every }xtext{ that satisfies: }xin B $$
So - by definition - if $Bsubseteq C$ then $Ain C$ is a true statement whenever $Ain B$.
This comes to the same as saying that: $$Ain Bwedge Bsubseteq Cimplies Ain C$$is a true statement.
So here a proof is actually nothing more than the application of a definition.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In set-theory $in$ is a primitive notion that has no definition.
It is just some kind of relation that two sets have or have not: $$Bin Ctext{ or }Bnotin C$$
Based on $in$ a new relation $subseteq$ is defined by stating that: $$Bsubseteq Ciff xin Ctext{ for every }xtext{ that satisfies: }xin B $$
So - by definition - if $Bsubseteq C$ then $Ain C$ is a true statement whenever $Ain B$.
This comes to the same as saying that: $$Ain Bwedge Bsubseteq Cimplies Ain C$$is a true statement.
So here a proof is actually nothing more than the application of a definition.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In set-theory $in$ is a primitive notion that has no definition.
It is just some kind of relation that two sets have or have not: $$Bin Ctext{ or }Bnotin C$$
Based on $in$ a new relation $subseteq$ is defined by stating that: $$Bsubseteq Ciff xin Ctext{ for every }xtext{ that satisfies: }xin B $$
So - by definition - if $Bsubseteq C$ then $Ain C$ is a true statement whenever $Ain B$.
This comes to the same as saying that: $$Ain Bwedge Bsubseteq Cimplies Ain C$$is a true statement.
So here a proof is actually nothing more than the application of a definition.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
$endgroup$
In set-theory $in$ is a primitive notion that has no definition.
It is just some kind of relation that two sets have or have not: $$Bin Ctext{ or }Bnotin C$$
Based on $in$ a new relation $subseteq$ is defined by stating that: $$Bsubseteq Ciff xin Ctext{ for every }xtext{ that satisfies: }xin B $$
So - by definition - if $Bsubseteq C$ then $Ain C$ is a true statement whenever $Ain B$.
This comes to the same as saying that: $$Ain Bwedge Bsubseteq Cimplies Ain C$$is a true statement.
So here a proof is actually nothing more than the application of a definition.
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
edited Dec 31 '18 at 12:51
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
answered Dec 31 '18 at 12:46
drhabdrhab
99.1k544130
99.1k544130
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
$begingroup$
I didn't know $in$ was primitive. As such, this comment might not be helpful, but the naïve view of $in$ is that it says the set on its left side is "inside" the set on its right; maybe that's worth editing into your answer (and I'll leave that up to you). Although of heard of, say, geometry being taught without any diagrams or talk of shapes, it is nonetheless instructive to "know" what lines & points are, at least by example, even though they, too, are primitive.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Dec 31 '18 at 14:15
1
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
$begingroup$
@Shaun I think that your comment on its own is enough on this matter, so will not add something. Actually it is only a shift/translation from $in$ to the primitive notion "inside" (what is that in mathematics?) and gives at most a way to visualize (very useful indeed). Somewhere definitions must stop. You could say that the relation $atext{ defined by means of }b$ is well founded, i.e. every non-empty subset has a least (i.e. primitive) element.
$endgroup$
– drhab
Dec 31 '18 at 15:12
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%2f3057660%2fproving-a-in-b-land-b-subseteq-c-to-a-in-c%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
2
$begingroup$
It is okay but it would be better if you could make it more formal. Here are some ideas: if $a in B$ and $B subseteq C$, you can use the definition of $B subseteq C$ to conclude that $a in C$. What's the definition of $B subseteq C$?
$endgroup$
– Ashish K
Dec 31 '18 at 12:31