Difference between revisions of "The relationship between logical implication and the subset relation"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Marked as dire page, changed subset to \subseteq , added forall x in A[x in B] form, outlined proof of equivalence.)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Dire page}}
 
==Definition==
 
==Definition==
<math>A\subset B</math> (and we say "A is a subset of B") if and only if every element of <math>A</math> also belongs to <math>B</math>
+
<math>A\subseteq B</math> (and we say "A is a subset of B") if and only if every element of <math>A</math> also belongs to <math>B</math>
  
That is: <math>[A\subset B]\iff[x\in A\implies x\in B]</math><ref>Definition 3.10 (p10) - Introduction to Set Theory, Third Edition (Revised and Expanded) - Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech</ref>
+
That is: <math>[A\subseteq B]\iff\forall x[x\in A\implies x\in B]</math><ref>Definition 3.10 (p10) - Introduction to Set Theory, Third Edition (Revised and Expanded) - Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech</ref>
  
 +
===Note: 16/1/2017 by [[User:Alec|Alec]] ([[User talk:Alec|talk]]) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)===
 +
We may often write:
 +
* {{M|\forall x\in A[x\in B]}} instead.
 +
This is easily seen to be equivalent as if {{M|A}} is [[empty set|empty]] (so there is no {{M|x\in A}} to speak of) the implication is semantically true, and the forall is vacuously true.
  
==Sources==
+
==References==
 
+
<references/>
 
{{Definition|Set Theory}}
 
{{Definition|Set Theory}}

Latest revision as of 17:36, 16 January 2017

This page is a dire page and is in desperate need of an update.

Definition

[math]A\subseteq B[/math] (and we say "A is a subset of B") if and only if every element of [math]A[/math] also belongs to [math]B[/math]

That is: [math][A\subseteq B]\iff\forall x[x\in A\implies x\in B][/math][1]

Note: 16/1/2017 by Alec (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We may often write:

  • [ilmath]\forall x\in A[x\in B][/ilmath] instead.

This is easily seen to be equivalent as if [ilmath]A[/ilmath] is empty (so there is no [ilmath]x\in A[/ilmath] to speak of) the implication is semantically true, and the forall is vacuously true.

References

  1. Definition 3.10 (p10) - Introduction to Set Theory, Third Edition (Revised and Expanded) - Karel Hrbacek and Thomas Jech