1
$\begingroup$

Problem: Prove that $A \subseteq B \implies C-B \subseteq C-A$.

My attempt:

$A \subseteq B \implies$ if $x \in A$ then $x \in B$. Since $A$ consists only of some (or all) elements in $B$, we remove less elements of $C$ when taking the set difference, $C - A$, than we do when taking the set difference, $C - B$. Therefore, since for both of these differences we are removing elements from the same set, $C - B \subseteq C-A$.

I appreciate this is pretty sloppy, but I think the logic is almost there, I'm just not sure how to formalise the ideas.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It does need to be formalized a bit more, but you do have the right idea. So, try element chasing to show $C-B\subseteq C-A$. Start by taking an arbitrary element of $C-B$. Call it $x$. We want to show that it follows that $x\in C-A$. So, $x\in C-B$, meaning that $x\in C$ and $x\notin B$. Do you see why $x\notin B$ implies that $x\notin A$? (think using contrapositives). Do you see why this then implies that $x\in C$ and $x\notin A$? Simplifying that last sentence, can you write it more compactly using set difference? $\endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Oct 9, 2017 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ I think I see that $x \notin B$ implies that $x \notin A$ because $A \subseteq B$. As for why this implies $x \in C$ and $x \notin A$, I'm not entirely sure. For these types of questions do we work under the assumption that $A$, $B$, and $C$ are all subsets of some universal set? If that's the case then I think I can see why. $\endgroup$ Oct 10, 2017 at 8:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah it makes complete sense now, thanks. I came up with the following: Assume $x \in C - B$. Then $x \in C$ and $x \notin B$. Because $x \notin B$, this implies $x \notin A$, since $A \subseteq B$. Then $x \in C$ and $x \notin A \implies x \in C-A$. Therefore we have shown $x \in C-B \implies x \in C-A$, or equivalently, $C-B \subseteq C-A$. $\endgroup$ Oct 10, 2017 at 8:54

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

Formally:

$A\subset B$ $\rightarrow $

$B^c\subset A^c$ $\rightarrow$

$C\cap B^c \subset C\cap A^c$.

With

$C - B = C\cap B^c;$ $C-A = C\cap A^c$,

we get:

$C-B \subset C-A.$

Appended:

Proof of $A\subset B$ $\rightarrow$ $B^c\subset A^c$.

$A\subset B $: $x\in A$ then $ x\in B.$

$\rightarrow:$

If $x \not\in B$ then $x \not\in A$, I.e.

$ x\in B^c$ then $x \in A^c$, or

$B^c \subset A^c$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Element chase.

We want to show $x\in C\setminus B \implies x\in C \setminus A$.

In this context, talking it out will have everything fall into place.

If $x \in C\setminus B$ then $x \in C$ and $x \not \in B$. If $x \not \in B$ then $x \not \in A$. (Why?) So $x \in C$ and $x \not \in A$. So $x\in C \setminus A$. And $ C\setminus B \subset C \setminus A$.

There is a bit of a stickler in that we should prove that if $X \subset Y$ then $x\not \in Y \implies x\not \in X$. The definition of $X \subset Y$ is $x\in X \implies x\in Y$. So the contrapositive of the definition is $x \not \in Y \implies x\not \in X$. That's enough. If it's seems too glib, there is a formal proof by contradiction that:

If $X\subset Y$ and $x \not \in Y$. If $x \in X$ then $x \in Y$ and that is a contradiction so $x\not \in X$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

You are on the right lines, but as you said yourself - the logic isn't quite there. You want to take what you are intuitively saying and turn it into formal logic.

We want to show that $C - B \subseteq C - A$. In other word we want to show that every element of $C - B$ is an element of $C - A$.

So start by showing "If $x \in C - B$, then ..., then $x \in C - A$". Once you have done this you can conclude that $C - B \subseteq C - A$ as $x$ was an arbitrary element.


As for how you go about filling in "If $x \in C - B$, then ..., then $x \in C - A$", think about what it means for an element to be in $C - B$ and use the fact that $A \subseteq B$.

$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .