Set Difference
Set Difference
Suppose that
are
sets, then
and call it the set difference of
and
set difference is empty iff one is a superset of the other
Suppose that are sets, then , if and only if
TODO
Difference of a Superset is Empty
Suppose that are sets such that , then
Let , therefore , and , this is impossible since if then as , therefore no such is an element of this set, so that
Empty Intersection implies Superset Difference
Suppose that are sets, assuming , then
Taking an element we'd like to show that , we can see because , it's also clear that since if it were then which would be a contradiction. Combining this, we have that as needed.
Set Difference with Itself is Empty
Set Difference with the Empty set is Itself
TODO
Redundant Intersection in Difference
Suppose that are sets then
Suppose that therefore , but , we can see that and since , then , therefore
Now suppose that , so that and , from this we deduct that , so to avoid contradiction, we must have , since we also know , we can say that
Intersection Distributes through Set Difference
Suppose that are sets then
Suppose that so , and , this means that and , this shows that as needed
Now suppose that so , but , recombining this information we can see that , as needed.
Union Intersection Inversion through set Difference
Suppose that are sets then
We know that is true iff and , equivalent to or , since , we can biconditionally re-write this as or iff
Since all connectives in the above proof are bi-conditionals, then we know that
Double Difference creates Intersection
Suppose that are sets such that , then
Suppose that which is true iff and which means that it's not true that so that or , since and we know that then , which forcs to avoid a contradiction, therefore
Suppose that , therefore , and , thus we can see that thus
Triple Difference Equality
Suppose that are sets such that , then
iff and equivalent to the following statement not being true: which is or , therefore or so that
The above chain of steps can be traversed forwards or backwards since each connective is an iff, therefore the proof is complete
Double Set Difference Yields Intersection
Suppose that are sets, then
Suppose that which is true iff and which means that it's not true that we already know that holds, so we must have that to be false, which means that so that
Suppose that , since , then it's not true that , therefore since , this shows that
Double Set Difference Cancels for Subsets
Suppose that then
Recall that and since we know it's equal to
TODO
Suppose that and , then solves the given equation
Suppose that , then
DeMorgan's Laws
Suppose that is a family of sets, then
and
Note that, , if and only if and , which is equivalent to: for all , which is the same as for each , so by definition . Since each connective in the previous paragraph was an iff, then this implies the two sets are equal
For the second proof, we'll follow a similar structure to the first. Note that, , if and only if and , which is equivalent to: there is some , which is the same as for some , so by definition . Since each connective in the previous paragraph was an iff, then this implies the two sets are equal