Thanks,
]]>Please Tell me how I can show
Proof:
We must prove that both
and . is clear since is a subset of .To prove the other inclusion, suppose
and let . . If we are done. If then, since , we have as well. In either case . Hence .]]>So A big triangled with the intersection is (A less the intersection) united with (the intersection less A)
A less the intersection is the bits of A without the bits in B.
The intersection without A is nothing at all so the empty set.
Unite these.
But everything in a set plus the empty set is still just that set so
This is just the definition of \, hence
Bob
]]>line 1: I used your definition for the triangly thing.
line 2: I simplified it. Couldn't make a dash work as in A-dash = not A so I used a wobbly over tilde thingy.
phi is the empty set.
As for this:
Use the distributivity laws
In A AND in the union = just A
Bob
]]>I see it all. The problem seems to be with the proof.
Please Tell me how I can show
bob,
Sorry, I do not get it.
]]>Bob
]]>Sorry, it is supposed to be This:
Prove that:
ThatÂ’s better.
and it is easy to see that
.]]>Bob
]]>Bob
]]>I can figure it out myself if you can explain how to get the third line fromt the second
]]>Something is wrong with your question.
]]>Bob
]]>