1

Set Theory

For some very good reasons, basic set theory is very similar to the theory of logic we developed
earlier. This is important, and our text in sections 4.4 and 4.5 does not make this clear enough.
Worse, because the text does not appropriately use the close connection between the two theories,
the proofs in sections 4.4 and 4.5 are, in the instructors opinion, much more difficult to follow
than necessary.1,2

1.1

Basic Definitions

Set theory is basically a theory of collections of things, with each collection being called a set
and each thing being called an element. Thus, our fundamental concept is that of a particular
thing being an element of a given set S , which we write as x S . That is, we have the
fundamental open sentence of set theory,
x S : x is one of the things in the collection called set S .
The logical negation of this then gives us the logical phrase that an object x is not one of the
things in the collection called set S ,
x 6 S : (x S)

We will have an overriding (and often unstated) assumption in all that follows; namely, that
there is some universal set U of things, and these things are the elements of all of our other
basic sets A , B , C , etc. (excluding, of course, the sets of sets such as the power sets and
partitions). So, when we say x S , it is implicit that we also have x U . Consequently, the
statements
xS
and
(x S) (x U)
are equivalent statements, and, if we wish, we can always replace one with the other.
Now we can define the basic relations in set theory by explicitly giving appropriate defining
statements.3 In each, A and B are sets.
1 In their defense: At this point, the authors were mainly interested in illustrating the proof techniques just developed

in chapter 3.
2 On the other hand, the authors totally ignore the idea of direct proofs by computation, which can be especially

useful in proving many equality claims.

3 Actually, most are defining open sentences.

3/1/2013

Set Theory

1.

Chapter & Page: 12

(subset) We define the statement that A is a subset of B , (shorthand: A B ) by

A B : x U, x A x B .

2.

(equality of sets) We define the statement that A and B are equal sets (shorthand:
A = B ) by
A = B : x U, x A x B .
Note that, by our definition of the biconditional, the last can be written as
A = B : x U, (x A x B) (x B x A) .
From this and the definition of one set being a subset of the other, we get a logical
equivalence
A = B (A B) (B A) .
Recall that this means A B and B A is a characterization of A = B , and can
be used in place of the definition. In fact, in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of our text, they treat our
characterization as the definition for A = B . This would mean that they could (but they
dont) derive our definition for A = B as a characterization. This may have simplified
some of their proofs.

Before defining unions and so forth, let us note the basic relation between a set S and its
elements:


S = {x : x S}
or, equivalently. S = {x U : x S}
.
So, to define S , we can simply define what the statement x S means when S is generated
from other sets by various methods.
1.

(union) We define the union of A and B (shorthand: A B ) through the defining

statement
x A B : (x A) (x B) .
Thus,
A B = {x : (x A) (x B)}

2.

(intersection) We define the intersection of A and B (shorthand A B ), through the

defining statement
x A B : (x A) (x B) .
Thus,
A B = {x : (x A) (x B)}

3.

We define the difference A B by

x A B : (x A) (x 6 B) .
Thus,
A B = {x : (x A) (x 6 B)}

Extending these definitions in a logical manner:

version: 3/1/2013

Set Theory

1.

Chapter & Page: 13

We have the negations

A 6 B : (A B)
and
A 6= B : (A = B) .

2.

The complement of B , B , is defined by

B = U B

That is,
B = {x : (x U) (x 6 B)}

Keep in mind, however, that x U is always true by the definition of U , which means
the above statement defining B is true if and only if x 6 B . So, the above is logically
equivalent to
B = {x : x 6 B} = {x : (x B)} .
Thus, for every x in U , we have the equivalences
x 6 B x B (x B) .
This fact will simplify many proofs involving complements.
Observe that, by the definitions and the last line above,


A B = {x : (x A) (x 6 B)} = x : (x A) (x B) = A B

This is the proof of:

Lemma 1.1
Let A and B be sets. Then
AB = AB

In the text, this is result 4.19 on page 109. Compare our proof to theirs. Much of the
difference lies in having a precise definition and noting the immediate characterizations which
can be used in place of the original definition.

1.2

Fundamental Properties of Set Operations

Theorem 1.2
For sets A , B and C , we have
1.

the commutative laws:

(a)

AB = B A

(b)

AB = B A

version: 3/1/2013

Set Theory

2.

3.

4.

Chapter & Page: 14

the associative laws:

(a)

A (B C) = (A B) C

(b)

A (B C) = (A B) C

the distributive laws:

(a)

A (B C) = (A B) (A C)

(b)

A (B C) = (A B) (A C)

and De Morgans laws:

(a)

AB = AB

(b)

AB = AB

PROOF (of 1a):

we have

We already know that the logical or commutes. So, using our definitions,
A B = {x : (x A) (x B)}
= {x : (x B) (x A)}
= BA

PROOF (of 2a):

we have

We already know that the logical or is associative. So, using our definitions,
A (B C) = {x : (x A) (x B C)}



= x : (x A) (x B) (x C)




= x : (x A) (x B) (x C)




= x : (x A B) (x C)
= (A B) C

PROOF (of 3a):

Using our definitions and a distributive law from logic, we have

A (B C) = {x : (x A) (x B C)}



= x : (x A) (x B) (x C)





= x : (x A) (x B) (x A) (x C)
= {x : (x A B)) (x A C)}
= (A B) (A C)

PROOF (of 4a):

Using our definitions and characterizations of complements, along with a
De Morgans law from logic, we have
A B = {x : x 6 A B}
= {x : (x A B)}



= x : (x A) (x B)
version: 3/1/2013

Set Theory

Chapter & Page: 15

x : (x A) (x B)


= x : (x A) (x B)

= AB
?Exercise 1.1:

a: 1b.

You prove following claims in theorem 1.2:

b: 2b.

c: 3b.

d: 4b.

Lets face it, some of the results given in Theorem 1.2 are so obviously true that we would
not have spent the time we spent on them if this were not MA 330. Let us at least agree that
these are, now, well known facts, and that, in the future, we will have little need to refer to the
above theorem when we use these facts.
Thus far, all of our proofs can be considered as direct proofs using computation. This is
often a good approach when proving equalities of things. But when we just are showing that
one set is contained in another, it may be better to simply do what, for us, is a more classic direct
proof. That is the case for the next two lemmas, which I consider to be fundamental, though
the text doesnt seem to mention them.

Lemma 1.3
Let A and B be sets. Then A A B .
PROOF: We need to show that any x in A is also in A B . So assume x A is true. By
the truth tables, we then know that (x A) (x B) is also a true statement, telling us that
x A B.
The next lemma is very similar.

Lemma 1.4
Let A and B be two sets. Then A B A .
?Exercise 1.2:

Prove lemma 1.4.

Here are a few more useful little facts for you to prove:
?Exercise 1.3:

Let A , B and C be sets (and remember that is the empty set).

a: Prove that A A = A and that A A = A .

b: Prove that A = A
c: Prove that A = .
d: Prove that A A = U .
e: Prove that A A = .
f: Prove that if A B C , then A C .
g: Prove that if A = B = C , then A = C .
h: Prove that if A B = C or A = B C , then A C .

version: 3/1/2013

Set Theory

Chapter & Page: 16

The facts listed in the above exercise are so obvious that they would only be proven in a
course like MA 330. In the future, we will use them without comment.
Here are some more useful facts that may take a moment longer to confirm:

Lemma 1.5
Let A and B be sets. If A B A , then A = B .
Lemma 1.6
Let A , B and C be sets. If B C , then A B A C ,
Lemma 1.7
Let A , B and C be sets. If B C , then A B A C .
?Exercise 1.4:

Prove each of the following:

a: Lemma 1.5

1.3

b: Lemma 1.6

c: Lemma 1.7

Other Results

A good reason to first verify all those little results in the previous section is that they can greatly
simplify proofs of less obvious results. Here is one from our text:

Claim 1.8 (Result 4.19 of the text)

Let A and B be sets. Then A B = A if and only if B A .
PROOF:

Assume A B = A . This, along with lemma 1.3, gives us

B AB = A

Hence, B A .
To prove the converse (i.e., if B A , then A B = A ), first assume B A . Applying
lemma 1.3, we then have
A AB A A = A .
Hence, A A B A , which, as noted in lemma 1.5, tells us that A B = A .
Here is another

Claim 1.9 (Result 4.20)

For every set A and B ,
(A B) (A B) = (A B) (B A) .

version: 3/1/2013

Set Theory

Chapter & Page: 17

PROOF: Repeatedly applying lemma 1.1, along with the distributive laws, commutative laws
and De Morgans laws for sets, we have
(A B) (A B) = (A B) (A B)
= (A B) (A B)




= (A B) A (A B) B




= (A A) (B A) (A B) (B B)




= (B A) (A B)
= (B A) (A B)
= (A B) (B A)

version: 3/1/2013