Can we derive the set $A-B$ using only unions and intersections and without addition and substraction? I was just wondering if it is possible to derive the set $A-B$ using just union and intersection. I've tried all different ways and even tried adding a new set C and tried with that but didn't work out. I am questioning is it even possible?
 A: $A-B$ cannot be realised by unions and intersections alone, even if an ambient set is brought in.
The union and intersection operations correspond to the $\lor$ and $\land$ operators of Boolean logic. These operators are monotone – changing any of their arguments from $0$ to $1$ never changes the result from $1$ to $0$. But $A-B$ corresponds to $A\land\neg B$, which is not monotone.
A: Here is a minimal counterexample. 
Let $X = \{0,1\}$. Then the subset $S = \{ \emptyset, \{1\},  \{0,1\}\}$ of $\mathcal{P}(X)$ is closed under intersection and union, as you can easily verify. However, $\{0,1\} - \{1\} = \{0\}$ is not in $S$. Therefore $\{0\}$ cannot be obtained from $\{0,1\}$ and $\{1\}$ just by using union and intersection.
A: Here's an abstract way to approach it, which - while more complicated than necessary (just look at J.-E. Pin's counterexample) - may be useful for such arguments more generally:
Remember that forming $A-B$ from $A$ consists of throwing out the whole set of things $A$ and $B$ have in common. Now this is a problem: "$\cup$" doesn't throw anything out at all, and "$\cap$" throws out everything except the things $A$ and $B$ have in common. Intuitively, repeatedly applying $\cup$ and $\cap$ to $A$ and $B$ - however complicatedly we do so - will never manage to get rid of anything in both $A$ and $B$, so will never be able to yield $A-B$ (unless $A\cap B=\emptyset$ of course).

Now let's formalize that intuition.
First we'll need a precise definition of "built from $A$ and $B$ using $\cup$ and $\cap$." This is the following:


*

*Let $\mathcal{C}_0=\{A,B\}$.

*For $i\in\mathbb{N}$, let $$\mathcal{C}_{i+1}=\mathcal{C}_i\cup\{X\cup Y:X,Y\in\mathcal{C}_i\}\cup\{X\cap Y: X,Y\in\mathcal{C}_i\}.$$

*Let $\mathcal{C}=\bigcup_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\mathcal{C}_i$.
This $\mathcal{C}$ is the set-of-sets we want.

Exercise: Show that $\mathcal{C}$ can also be defined as the smallest set-of-sets containing both $A$ and $B$ as elements and closed under $\cup$ and $\cap$. (This "top-down" definition is perhaps less constructive, but is also extremely useful.)

Now suppose $A\cap B\not=\emptyset$; we will prove the following:
Claim: For each $Z\in\mathcal{C}$, we have $A\cap B\subseteq Z$ (and hence $Z\not=A-B$).
Proof: Everything in $\mathcal{C}$ lives in some $\mathcal{C}_i$, so we can use induction. 


*

*Clearly every element of $\mathcal{C}_0$ contains $A\cap B$ as a subset.

*Suppose every element of $\mathcal{C}_i$ contains $A\cap B$ as a subset; we want to show the same for $\mathcal{C}_{i+1}$. So let $Z\in\mathcal{C}_{i+1}$. There are three cases:


*

*$Z\in\mathcal{C}$: then we're done.

*$Z=X\cup Y$ for some $X,Y\in\mathcal{C}_i$: by the induction hypothesis we have $A\cap B\subseteq X$, so since $X\subseteq X\cup Y$ we have $A\cap B\subseteq Z$.

*$Z=X\cap Y$ for some $X,Y\in\mathcal{C}_i$: again by the induction hypothesis we have $A\cap B\subseteq X$ and $A\cap B\subseteq Y$, so $A\cap B\subseteq X\cap Y$.
And we're done!
A: Here is an elementary solution that should serve as an intuitive stepping stone to the very useful technique in Parcly Taxel's answer.
Consider the effects of adding elements to a set involved in a union or intersection. What happens? The union or intersection can either gain new elements or perhaps not change at all. It cannot lose elements. This is a simple way of grasping the concept called "monotone". But then it is very clear intuitively that you cannot obtain set difference by a formula that uses only union and intersection, because adding elements to $B$ cannot possibly remove elements from the original result. Thus if we start with $A$ non-empty and $B$ empty, the formula must produce $A$, but if we then add elements to $B$ to make it equal to $A$, the formula must produce $∅$, which is impossible by the above observation.
More concretely this should suggest the following simple counter-example (simpler than JEP's): If $A = B$ and are non-empty, then obviously any sequence of union/intersection operations will not produce any new set besides $A$, so obviously $A∖B = ∅$ cannot be produced.
A: If you see the definition of $A - B$, which is usually written as $A \setminus B$, it means the collection of all those elements of $A$ which are not in $B$. Therefore, the elements in $A \setminus B$ have the property that they are IN $A$ AND NOT IN $B$. We can write this as $A \cap B^c$, where $B^c$ is the complement of $B$ in the universal set being considered. In fact, this is a reason that $A \setminus B$ is called the "relative complement" of $B$ with respect to $A$.
