it is given in a book that a will not belong to c .but how?
alsi for a set to belong to some other set is it essential that all elements of one set should be present in the other.
If set A is a proper subset of setB and set B belongs to setC then will set a belong to set C?
Not necessarily. A note to the above answerer: "belongs to" is not ambiguous in any way. If x belongs to X, then x is an element of X. It's fairly standard terminology.
So here's the problem:
C is a set of sets. The set B is in C.
The set A might be in C. Is it?
A=B is not an option, however. Because A is a proper subset of B. There is no rule that says if C contains B, then C must contain all of its proper subsets.
Thus the answer is no (not necessarily).
Example: C is the set of {my cat, my marbles, my TV}
B = my marbles
A = my green marbles
C does not contain "my green marbles" - even though it contains "my marbles" because we're not talking about which marbles it contains, we're talking about two distinct sets of marbles.
Reply:I think what the book is trying to point out is the loose terminology in the question.
If the question said:
" If A is a proper subset of B and set B IS A PROPER SUBSET OF C then will A BE A PROPER SUBSET of C?"
This is a true statement.
Being a "subset of" another set is different from "belonging to" a set.
Consider the following example:
A = {1, 2, 3}
B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
and C = { {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, {1, 2} }
Certainly A is a proper subset of B, each containing numbers.
C, on the other hand, is a set of sets. It contains B, but the set A is not contained in set C.
Does this help?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment