

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Comments and solutions for problem 10 to 19 of math 111 homework 4. The document clarifies common misconceptions and incorrect answers, and explains the correct concepts and properties related to set operations, number theory, and algebra. The document emphasizes the importance of understanding the definitions and properties, and the need to reason in the reverse direction when proving statements.
Typology: Assignments
1 / 2
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!


There were two check marks for this problem: one for correctly saying that the statement is false, and another for giving a correct reason or example. Many of you gave explanations along the lines of “If A = 2 and B = 1, then 2 − 1 6 = 1 − 2”. There are several problems with this. First, in this exercise, A and B are given to be sets, not numbers. You may have meant to compare n(A − B) and n(B − A), the sizes of A and B, but then you must be cautious: n(A − B) is not necessarily equal to n(A) − n(B)—only when B is a subset of A. (And of course no set has a size which is negative!)
(c) True: A ∪ ∅ = A, and certainly A ⊆ A.
(e) False: the empty set has only one subset—the empty set! So the empty set is equivalent to all of its subsets. (The empty set is the only set with this property. Indeed, the empty set is a subset of every set, so if a set is equivalent to all of its subset, it is therefore equivalent to the empty set.)
(c) The best answer here is: the identity property of multiplication. The commutative property can be used to obtain 1 · 14 = 14 · 1, but the fact that these are both equal to 14 is the identity property. However, I gave a check mark for giving commutativity as the answer.
aren’t any q such that 1 = q · 0. But here, the difficulty is that there are far too many: 0 = q · 0 for any choice of q. So 0/0 does not exist because there is not just one number by which 0 can be multiplied to give 0.
(To argue slightly differently, Sue could equally well have said: any num- ber divided by ten times itself is 1/10. So 0/0 should be 1/10. Well, why not?)
I want to draw attention to a particular argument that many of you used, and why it is troublesome. Many people wrote down (a/b) · b = a (that is, they wrote down what they were trying to prove), then used the cancellation law to write a = a. Since a = a is evidently true, you concluded that your premise (that (a/b) · b = a) was true. Please, please take caution: beginning with a hypothesis and deriving, from this hypothesis, a true statement, does not prove the hypothesis! For example, I could try to prove the statement “0 = 1 and 2 = 2” by writing down “0 = 1 and 2 = 2”, concluding from this that 2 = 2, and deciding that my premise must have been correct. In fact, if you recall how if-then statements worked, the statement “if A then B” is always true if A is false. So I can derive anything that I want, beginning from a false statement!
Essentially, you need to reason in the reverse direction: you must begin with the true statement (e.g. a = a) and use the true statement to derive the consequence that you want. Not the other way around!