2
$\begingroup$

Let $\{A_\alpha:\alpha \in \Lambda\}$ be an indexed collection of sets. If $\bigcap \{A_\alpha:\alpha \in \Lambda\} \neq \emptyset$, then for each $\beta \in \Lambda$, $A_\beta \neq \emptyset$.

My thought was a proof through contraposition:

Assume $A_\beta = \emptyset$ for some $\beta \in \Lambda.$ It would follow that the intersection of $A_\beta$ with another set $A_\gamma$, where $\gamma \in \Lambda$ would yield the empty set. Thus $\bigcap \{A_\alpha:\alpha \in \Lambda\} = \emptyset$.

Is this proof valid or did I maybe overlook something. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is valid, but could be shorter, observing that the intersection of all the $A_\alpha$s is contained in any $A_\beta$. $\endgroup$ – Bernard Jun 6 at 20:57
1
$\begingroup$

Going off of Bernard's comment, recall that for any sets $A$ and $B$ we have $(A \cap B) \subset A$. Therefore, supposing by contraposition that $A_k = \emptyset$ for some $k \in \Lambda$, we see that $\bigcap_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} \subset A_{k} = \emptyset$. Thus $\bigcap_{\alpha} A_{\alpha} = \emptyset$, and the proof is complete.

(Edit: to clarify, yes, your proof is valid, though this approach is slightly more direct.)

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

If $\{A_\alpha|\;\alpha\in\Lambda\}$ is a non-empty family of sets, and $\bigcap\{A_\alpha|\;\alpha\in\Lambda\}\not=\varnothing$, then let $a$ be one of its elements. By definition of the intersection of a set, $a$ is such that $a\in A_\alpha$ for all $\alpha\in\Lambda$. Now, $a\not\in\varnothing$, and therefore, $A_\alpha\not=\varnothing$, for all $\alpha\in\Lambda$, by the axiom of extensionality.

$\endgroup$

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.