,
Assume
then
, but this is impossible because
is empty, hence our assumption is false and it is true that
.
Assume
then
and
. Now
but
because
contains nothing, therefore
so the assumption is false and it is true that
.
,
.
Clearly
so that
.
is called an improper subset of
.
,
.
True. By definition
is the power set of
and contains all subsets of
. Since
it follows that
.
,
.
%False. For
to be true it must hold that if
then
. But if
is any non-empty set it contains elements and an element of
is not a subset of
, it is therefore not in
and hence
.
False. Assume
, then
. Consider any such
,
but
. Therefore the assumption, namely that
, is false.
,
.
True.
contains only the element
and
so
. Everything in
is thus in
so it follows from the definition of subset that
.
,
.
True. It was proven above that for any set
,
.
contains all subsets of
by definition,
, therefore
.
%Since
contains all subsets of
it clearly contains
.
,
.
True.
is a subset of any set
therefore
irrespective of
.
.
False. The set
contains the element
.
and
be sets. If
, then
.
%True. Assume that it is not true that if
, then
. It follows that there exists a subset
of
which is not a subset of
, but since any element in
is also in
, this is impossible. By the same construction steps that we apply to the elements of
to construct
we can construct
from the elements of
as they occur in
. Therefore the assumption is false and it is true that if
, then
.
True. Let
and assume
. By the assumption,
. Consider this
, by definition of
,
and therefore
but
which means
, therefore
which by definition means that
.
Now if
then by definition of
,
but this is a contradiction since it was claimed that
. Therefore the assumption, namely that
given
, is false, and it is therefore true that if
, then
.
.
True since
and
are distinct objects and they belong to the set.
,
,
be sets. Prove that if
and
then
.
If
, then
, and if
, then
. It follows from the former, given the latter, that
, and hence
.
Alternative proof: If
then
, and if
then
. Thus
and hence
thus
.
Alternative proof (by contradiction): Assume that
and
but
, this means that
. Taking this
since
,
, and since
,
which is a contradiction. Therefore the assumption is false, namely that
, and hence it is true that if
and
, then
.
be sets. Prove that if
and
, then
.
Proof by induction on
.
The base case,
is trivially true since
. %For the base case
,
and
, therefore by definition of set equality
.
Now it is required to show that for any
, if the claim holds for
then it holds for
. For
we have
![]() |
and
. Now
and
which means that
, therefore
and
both hold. Given that the claim holds for
it follows that
![]() |
and therefore because
that
because
. Given that it is also true that
, this means that
and since
it follows that
![]() |
and the induction step holds.