My question is about the proof of the distributive laws of boolean operations, more specifically I have some trouble understanding this equality: $B \cup (A_1 \cap \cdots \cap A_n) = (B \cup A_1) \cap \cdots \cap (B \cup A_n)$.

Denoting $(A_1 \cap \cdots \cap A_n)$ by $C$, the left hand side reads as $x \in B$ or $C$, that is $x$ is in at least one of $B$ and $C$.

Now, I interpret the right hand side the following way: If $x$ is not in $B$, then $x$ must be in all the $A_i$, because for each term, $x$ has to be in at least one of $B$ or $A_i$, and if $x \notin B$ for one term, then $x \notin B$ for all terms. That's about as far as I get, because I feel like the right hand side implies that $x$ can be in $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, which would contradict the left hand side. Like, if we look at the first term $B \cup A_1$, one valid possibility is that $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1$. At the same time, for the second term, $B \cup A_2$, it seems like it would be valid to say that $x$ is in $B$ but not in $A_2$, but this contradicts the left hand side, which implies that $x$ must be in every $A_i$ if it is in one of them.

So if I were given just the right hand side, $(B \cup A_1) \cap \cdots \cap (B \cup A_n)$, I would say, OK, $x$ can be in $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, $x$ can be in not $B$ and $A_i$ for all $i$, but $x$ cannot be in not $B$ and just some of the $A_i$, since for every term $x$ must be in at least $B$ or $A_i$. And then finally, the part which seems irreconcilable with the left hand side of the equation at the top: $x$ can be in $B$ and some of the $A_i$.


Your interpretation of RHS is okay ("if $x$ is not in $B$ then $x$ must be in all $A_i$").

Also if $x$ is an element of the RHS then $x$ can indeed be an element of $B$ and some of the $A_i$.

This however does not contradict that $x$ is an element of the LHS (as you seem to think). Every element that is in $B$ is an element of the LHS simply because $B$ is a subset of the LHS, and the question whether $x$ is an element of some, none or all of the $A_i$ is not relevant.

Observe that the LHS can be interpretated exactly the same as RHS: $x$ is an element of LHS if it is an element of $B$ or is an element $A_i$ for some $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.

Does this help?

  • $\begingroup$ I think so. For instance, if $x$ is in $B$ and $A_1,A_2$, but not for any other $A_i$, this does not contradict the LHS, b.c. $x$ is still in $B$, which is consistent with the LHS? $\endgroup$ – goblinb Jan 28 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is what I am saying. $\endgroup$ – drhab Jan 28 at 12:44

A $\cup$ (B $\cap$ C) = (A $\cup$ B) $\cap$ (A $\cup$ B).
x in A $\cup$ (B $\cap$ C) iff x in A or x in B $\cap$ C
if x in A or (x in B and x in C)
iff (x in A or x in B) and (x in A or x in B)
iff x in A $\cup$ B and x in A $\cup$ B
iff x in (A $\cup$ B) $\cap$ (A $\cup$ B)

By induction this proof can be extended to any finite number of intersections.

If C is any collection of sets, then
A $\cup$ $\cap$C = $\cap${ A $\cup$ X : X in C }.
x in A $\cup$ $\cap$C iff x in A or x in $\cap$C
iff x in A or for all X in C, x in X
iff for all X in C, (x in A or x in X)
iff for all x in C, x in A $\cup$ X
iff x in $\cap${ A $\cup$ X : X in C }.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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