Prove that <munder> &#x22C2;<!-- ⋂ --> <mrow class="MJX-TeXAtom-ORD"> x &#x22

pevljivuaosyc

pevljivuaosyc

Answered question

2022-05-11

Prove that x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] = { 0 }
Answer:
So my approach is a little bit different than the usual, that { 0 } x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] and that x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] 0 .
So I tried to do it that we have a [ x , 1 + x ] ,, x [ 1 , 0 ] a [ 1 , 1 ], and is a real number.
So now if we look at x = 1 + ϵ, where ϵ > 0 and is a small real number, we have some a 0 [ 1 + ϵ , ϵ ] and if we look at x = ϵ, we have a 1 [ ϵ , 1 ϵ ].
Ok, so what I want to show is that if a 1 , a 0 x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] iff a 1 = a 0 .
Now if we look at the inequalities (we say that { a R | x [ 1 , 0 ] : a [ x , 1 + x ] }):
1 + ϵ a ϵ ϵ a 1 ϵ
ϵ a ϵ
and as ϵ 0, we get: 0 a 0 a = 0 = a 1 = a 0
Is my proof correct? How would you show it the usual way (with subset going both ways)?

Answer & Explanation

bamenyab4mxn

bamenyab4mxn

Beginner2022-05-12Added 16 answers

Step 1
Your approach shows x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] { 0 }. It could be also written like this: let a x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] be arbitrary. Then for any x [ 1 , 0 ] we have x a 1 + x ..
Letting x = 0 we get 0 a and letting x = 1 we get a 0. Therefore a = 0.
Step 2
The converse inclusion is easy. For any x [ 1 , 0 ] we have 1 + x [ 0 , 1 ] and hence
x 0 1 + x 0 [ x , 1 + x ] ..
Since x [ 1 , 0 ] was arbitrary, we conclude 0 x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] { 0 } x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , 1 + x ] ..
Ashley Fritz

Ashley Fritz

Beginner2022-05-13Added 5 answers

Explanation:
x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , x + 1 ] x { 0 , 1 } [ x , x + 1 ] = [ 1 , 0 ] [ 0 , 1 ] = { 0 } x [ 1 , 0 ] [ x , x + 1 ]

Do you have a similar question?

Recalculate according to your conditions!

New Questions in Discrete math

Ask your question.
Get an expert answer.

Let our experts help you. Answer in as fast as 15 minutes.

Didn't find what you were looking for?