lect_12 - Sets II Margaret M. Fleck 15 February 2010 This...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Sets II Margaret M. Fleck 15 February 2010 This lecture shows how to prove facts about set equality and set inclusion. (Rosen section 2.2). 1 Announcements First midterm is a week from Wednesday (i.e. February 24th) 7-9pm in 141 Wohlers. Please tell me ASAP about any conflicts or special needs. For conflicts, please include a copy of your class schedule. Quizzes will be handed out in sections today and tomorrow. Grades should be on compass this afternoon. Check out the Exams web page for information on how to interpret your score. 2 Recap Last class, we saw a bunch of set theory notation and operations on sets. Much of this was (more or less) familiar. The least familiar operations were Powerset: P ( A ) = { all subsets of A } Cartesian product: A B = { ( x,y ) | x A and y B } 1 Remember that ( x,y ) is an ordered pair containing two objects, which is very different from the two-object set { x,y } . In ( x,y ), the order of the two elements matters and you can have duplicates e.g. (2 , 2). If you add the same thing to a set twice, you only get one copy in the set, e.g. { 2 , 2 } = { 2 } . 3 Set identities Rosen lists a large number of identities showing when two sequences of set operations yield the same output sets. For example: DeMorgans Law: A B = A B I wont go through these in detail because they are largely identical to the identities you saw for logical operations, if you make the following corre- spondences: is like is like A is like P (the empty set) is like F U (the universal set) is like T The two systems arent exactly the same. E.g. set theory doesnt use a close analog of the operator. But they are very similar. You can use these set theory identities to prove new identites via a chain of equalities. This is exactly like what you did with logical identities and theres no point in walking you through the same exercise twice. Im also going to skip showing you set membership tables, which are in Rosen, because those are just like truth tables and Im confident youre already on top of that idea....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/21/2011 for the course CS 173 taught by Professor Erickson during the Spring '08 term at University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

Page1 / 6

lect_12 - Sets II Margaret M. Fleck 15 February 2010 This...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online