Mathematical-Reasoning · Unit 17 · Video 4 · Interactive Practice
| Property | Statement (for ) |
|---|---|
| Basic, and | , , , , , |
| De Morgan's Laws | and |
| Subsets and complements | (the order reverses) |
| Three equivalent conditions |
Key Insight: An element-chasing proof follows one through the definitions; a proof by the algebra of sets chooses no element and rewrites one side, one named law per line, until it becomes the other side.
For every position of , the statements and have the same truth value.
Each rewrite is an equality justified by a named law, so the shaded set never changes.
Conditions (1), (2) and (3) are equivalent: wherever sits, they are all true or all false.
(1)
(2)
(3)
💡 The part of that misses is by De Morgan's Law and . So exactly when , which is why (2) and (3) always agree.
Problem 1 · De Morgan with Actual Elements
Given: , and . Find .
Directly: and , so
Check with De Morgan's Law: , and , the same set.
Problem 2 · Complements Reverse Inclusion
Given: and are subsets of a universal set with . Which statement must be true?
Let , so . If were in , then because , a contradiction. So , that is . Hence .
The example , , satisfies and refutes the other three: ; ; .
Problem 3 · Read an Algebra-of-Sets Chain
Given: the chain
Which law justifies the second line, ?
What is the final line?
The justifications, line by line:
So : removing the elements of or is the same as removing first and then .
Problem 4 · Equivalent Conditions with in Place of
Given: . Apply the theorem on three equivalent conditions with . Which condition is equivalent to ?
The theorem gives . With and :
The example , , has , yet , and , so none of the other options is equivalent.
Solved: 0 / 4