Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have been exploring more about set theory beyond my textbook and I have ran into something I couldn't explain. Can you use logical conjunction/disjunction on sets and are they the same as union/intersection?

A $\bigcap$ B

A $\wedge$ B

where A and B are sets. Are these equivalent? What does the disjunction or two sets mean?

share|cite|improve this question
Note that if $S$ is some set, then $\mathcal{P}(S)$, the union, intersection and complementation forms a Boolean algebra. Similarly, the set of propositions with $\lor$, $\land$ and $!$ forms a Boolean algebra which may be established to be isomorphic. – Shahab Oct 9 '12 at 1:57
@Shahab I don't understand... for a discrete math course should I be expecting that? – Rice Newman Oct 9 '12 at 2:00
I am not sure whether you have studied Boolean algebra, but if you haven't just note that there is a transformation which transforms conjunction/disjunction between propositions to union/intersection between sets nicely. This is really besides the point of your question and hence I included it just as a comment. – Shahab Oct 9 '12 at 3:32

They are closely related. One of the main motivations behind the notion of a set (or more generally of a class) is as an object that corresponds to a logical predicate: the set/class is an aggregation whose elements are precisely the objects satisfying the predicate.

If $P$ is a unary predicate, and I use the notation $[P]$ to denote the class corresponding to $P$: i.e. the class satisfying

$$x \in [P] \Leftrightarrow P(x)$$

then we have

$$[P \wedge Q] = [P] \cap [Q]$$

so we see the close relationship between $\wedge$ and $\cap$.

But for sets $S$ and $T$, $S \wedge T$ doesn't really make sense. Notation like this is would appear, however, if you were working in a lattice whose elements are sets: in this case, $\wedge$ is not meant to be viewed as an operation on sets, but as an operation on lattice elements (which just happen to be sets).

share|cite|improve this answer

The relation is that $$x\in A\cap B\iff (x\in A)\wedge (x\in B)$$

You can't write something like $$A\wedge B$$ it is not defined.

share|cite|improve this answer
"You can't write something like..." As long as you provide a definition, you can write whatever you want. I think you mean to say $A \wedge B$ has no standard meaning. – Austin Mohr Oct 9 '12 at 1:52
@AustinMohr - indeed, this is exactly what I meant. thank you for your comment – Belgi Oct 9 '12 at 1:53
How come on this website, it says otherwise (6th diagram) – Rice Newman Oct 9 '12 at 2:26
@RiceNewman - you want the second one. why the 6th ? – Belgi Oct 9 '12 at 2:28
Yes, the second or the 6th. They are both showing ^ – Rice Newman Oct 9 '12 at 2:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.