Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I came to point where I suppose for case 1 that $A\subseteq B$ and conclusion is trivial. For case 2 I suppose that $A\not\subseteq B$ and try to prove $B\subseteq A$, but that gets me nowhere. Any pointers here are most welcome.

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Here's a proof without contrapositive, if you prefer.

Suppose that $P(A) \cup P(B) = P(A \cup B)$. Then $A \cup B \in P(A \cup B) = P(A) \cup P(B)$. This means that $A \cup B$ is an element of either $P(A)$ or $P(B)$. Thus, either $B \subseteq A \cup B \subseteq A$ or $A \subseteq A \cup B \subseteq B$.

share|improve this answer
    
This is great!!! Thnx –  LavaScornedOven Nov 28 '12 at 15:15
    
+1, thanks for providing a better answer! –  Matt N. Nov 28 '12 at 15:15
1  
I still think @MattN. your idea with intermediary set is great, but Manny is closer to what I had in mind. I saw technique with intermediary sets in one proof long time ago, so it seems it is a well known approach. I thank both of you for help. –  LavaScornedOven Nov 28 '12 at 17:52
add comment

Assume that neither $A \subseteq B$ nor $B \subseteq A$. Then there are elements $x \in A \setminus B$ and $y \in B \setminus A$.

Then the set $\{x,y\}$ is in $P(A \cup B)$ but not in $P(A) \cup P(B)$.

share|improve this answer
    
This is basically proof by contradiction? Is there any room for direct proof? –  LavaScornedOven Nov 28 '12 at 14:17
1  
@Vedran I think it's called contraposition. It means that if you want to show $A \implies B$ you can instead show $\lnot B \implies \lnot A$. –  Matt N. Nov 28 '12 at 14:19
    
@Vedran As for a direct proof: Possibly. But the contraposition is short and smooth. –  Matt N. Nov 28 '12 at 14:20
1  
Oh, you're right, although for this theorem it could be looked at both ways. Thanks anyway for quick reply. BTW, I like the step with creating additional set very much. :) –  LavaScornedOven Nov 28 '12 at 14:29
add comment

Translating to the element level using $$V \in P(X) \;\equiv\; V \subseteq X$$ as the definition of $\;P(\cdot)\;$, this can be proved using a mostly straightforward calculation:

\begin{align} & P(A) \cup P(B) \;=\; P(A \cup B) \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"set extensionality; in left hand side expand definition of $\;\cup\;$"} \\ & \langle \forall V :: V \in P(A) \;\lor\; V \in P(B) \;\;\equiv\;\; V \in P(A \cup B) \rangle \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"definition of $\;P(\cdot)\;$, three times"} \\ & \langle \forall V :: V \subseteq A \;\lor\; V \subseteq B \;\;\equiv\;\; V \subseteq A \cup B \rangle \\ \Rightarrow & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"choose $\;V := A \cup B\;$} \\ & \;\;\;\;\;\phantom{"}\text{-- choosing a specific $\;V\;$ seems the best direction, given that we} \\ & \;\;\;\;\;\phantom{"}\text{are asked to prove a forward implication; and the other obvious} \\ & \;\;\;\;\;\phantom{"}\text{choices, $\;V := A\;$ and $\;V := B\;$, lead to set-theoretic tautologies"} \\ & A \cup B \subseteq A \;\lor\; A \cup B \subseteq B \;\;\equiv\;\; A \cup B \subseteq A \cup B \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"set theory: simplify using $\;X \cup Y \subseteq X \;\equiv\; Y \subseteq X\;$, twice, and $\;Z \subseteq Z\;$"} \\ & B \subseteq A \;\lor\; A \subseteq B \\ \end{align}

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.