0
$\begingroup$

Sorry I do not have enough space to state the whole question. It is stated below:

Let $A_1,A_2,...$ be a sequence of sets. Define $A'_1=A_1,A'_n=A_n\backslash\cup^{n-1}_{k=1}A_k,n=2,3.... $ prove that $A_1',A_2'...$is disjoint and $\cup^\infty_{n=1}A_n=\cup^\infty_{n=1}A_n'$

For the first part of the question, my approach is to first show the case is true for $A'_1,A'_2$ by saying that:

let any $x\in A'_1, x\notin A_2',A_3',...$ by definition, therefore $A_1'\cap A'_2= \emptyset, A_1'\cap A'_3= \emptyset,...$

let any $x\in A'_2, x\notin A_3',A_4',...$ by definition, therefore $A_2'\cap A'_3= \emptyset, A_2'\cap A'_4= \emptyset,...$

then extend it to $x\in A'_n, x\notin A_{n+1}'=A_{n+1}\backslash\cup^{n}_{k=1}A_k$ by definition, nor will it belongs to any of $A_k'$ where $n=1,2,...,k-1$. Therefore all sets should be pairwise disjoint. However, I am not sure if I am doing the question correctly and fear some important part is missing... (I feel my proof is not very rigorous).

For the second part of the question, I found this statement rather too abvious and do not know how to approach this quesiton ... Can someone pls: 1) take a look at my proof for the first part and give me some advise; 2) explain to me how should I approach the second part of the problem?

Thank you so much!

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think the first part is okay. For the second part, we have $A_n'\subset A_n$ so one inclusion is obvious. For the other way, show that if $x\in A_n$ then $x\in A_k'$ for some $k$. Or alternatively, argue that $\cup^N_{n=1}A_n=\cup^N_{n=1}A_n'$ for every $N$ $\endgroup$ – saulspatz Sep 1 '20 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ You can make your proof of the first part more rigorous by framing it as a proof by induction on $n$. A common way to prove set equality is to prove that each side of the equation is contained in the other, and that works here. $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Sep 1 '20 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertShore Hi, I was attempting to do the proof by induction but I only know how to do induction in the setting where we first suppose an equation hold for n=1, then suppose n=k holds and show n=k+1 also hold. I don't know how to do induction in a question of such... if possible could you please give me some hints? $\endgroup$ – JoZ Sep 1 '20 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, I think it's easier to prove that for any positive $k, A_n \cap A_{n+k}' = \emptyset$. Then prove $A_n' \subseteq A_n$. Combined, these prove that if $m \neq n$, then $A_m' \cap A_n' = \emptyset$. $\endgroup$ – Robert Shore Sep 2 '20 at 1:39
1
$\begingroup$

Your approach will work as noted in the comments. Here's another approach that might be a little simpler.

Note that $\forall n \in \Bbb N^+~(A_n' \subseteq A_n).$ Also, if $x \in \cup A_n$, then there is some least $n$ for which $x \in A_n$, so for that $n, x \in A_n'$. Thus, $\cup A_n \subseteq \cup A_n'$ and equality follows.

Finally, choose $x \in \cup A_n$ and let $m$ be smallest such that $x \in A_m$. Then by hypothesis, $x \notin \cup_{n=1}^{m-1} A_n$ so $x \in A_m'$. $A_n' \subseteq A_n \Rightarrow x \notin A_n'$ for $n \lt m$. If $n \gt m$, then $x \in A_m \Rightarrow x \notin A_n'.$ Thus, for each $x \in \cup A_n'$, there is a unique $m$ such that $x \in A_m$, so the $A_m$ are pairwise disjoint.

$\endgroup$

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.