If $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then $A, B$, and $C$ must be pairwise disjoint

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












Let A, B, and C be finite sets. Prove or disprove:



If $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then $A, B$, and $C$ must be pairwise disjoint.




I started with inclusion-exclusion formula



$$|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| + |A cap B cap C|$$



Hypothesis says if $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then expression $|A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| $, must be equal to zero. So, we have



$$ |A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| = 0$$
$$ |A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| tag1$$



Now, I am not sure how finish this proof. I found two ways, but I do not know if are correct.



First way



If $x in |A cap B cap C|$, then $x in |A cap B| wedge xin |A cap C| wedge x in |B cap C|$.



So if we count the cardinality of $|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$, then if $x in |A cap B cap C|$ then $x$ is counted once but on RHS $x$ is counted three times. Thus the equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.



Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.



Second way



From inclusion-exclusion formula, I know $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C |$$
I substitute in equation (1)
$$ -|A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C | = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$$
The expression $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ cancels out.
$$ |A| + |B| + |C| + |A cup B cup C | = 0$$



And this equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.

Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.




My question is which way is correct and better or if there is a different method to prove the proposition. Thank you. (I am self-studying student, who is reading a textbook about discrete mathematics).







share|cite|improve this question






















  • The first approach is incomplete. You did not consider the case where $Acap Bcap C$ is empty, whilst $Acap B$ is not.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:09










  • The second approach is incorrect. You got a wrong formula for the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion and should at the end simply obtain $|Acup Bcup C|-|A|-|B|-|C|=0$ (so, you proved nothing here). See answers below for correct approaches.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:11















up vote
5
down vote

favorite












Let A, B, and C be finite sets. Prove or disprove:



If $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then $A, B$, and $C$ must be pairwise disjoint.




I started with inclusion-exclusion formula



$$|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| + |A cap B cap C|$$



Hypothesis says if $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then expression $|A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| $, must be equal to zero. So, we have



$$ |A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| = 0$$
$$ |A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| tag1$$



Now, I am not sure how finish this proof. I found two ways, but I do not know if are correct.



First way



If $x in |A cap B cap C|$, then $x in |A cap B| wedge xin |A cap C| wedge x in |B cap C|$.



So if we count the cardinality of $|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$, then if $x in |A cap B cap C|$ then $x$ is counted once but on RHS $x$ is counted three times. Thus the equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.



Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.



Second way



From inclusion-exclusion formula, I know $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C |$$
I substitute in equation (1)
$$ -|A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C | = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$$
The expression $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ cancels out.
$$ |A| + |B| + |C| + |A cup B cup C | = 0$$



And this equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.

Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.




My question is which way is correct and better or if there is a different method to prove the proposition. Thank you. (I am self-studying student, who is reading a textbook about discrete mathematics).







share|cite|improve this question






















  • The first approach is incomplete. You did not consider the case where $Acap Bcap C$ is empty, whilst $Acap B$ is not.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:09










  • The second approach is incorrect. You got a wrong formula for the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion and should at the end simply obtain $|Acup Bcup C|-|A|-|B|-|C|=0$ (so, you proved nothing here). See answers below for correct approaches.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:11













up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











Let A, B, and C be finite sets. Prove or disprove:



If $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then $A, B$, and $C$ must be pairwise disjoint.




I started with inclusion-exclusion formula



$$|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| + |A cap B cap C|$$



Hypothesis says if $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then expression $|A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| $, must be equal to zero. So, we have



$$ |A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| = 0$$
$$ |A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| tag1$$



Now, I am not sure how finish this proof. I found two ways, but I do not know if are correct.



First way



If $x in |A cap B cap C|$, then $x in |A cap B| wedge xin |A cap C| wedge x in |B cap C|$.



So if we count the cardinality of $|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$, then if $x in |A cap B cap C|$ then $x$ is counted once but on RHS $x$ is counted three times. Thus the equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.



Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.



Second way



From inclusion-exclusion formula, I know $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C |$$
I substitute in equation (1)
$$ -|A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C | = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$$
The expression $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ cancels out.
$$ |A| + |B| + |C| + |A cup B cup C | = 0$$



And this equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.

Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.




My question is which way is correct and better or if there is a different method to prove the proposition. Thank you. (I am self-studying student, who is reading a textbook about discrete mathematics).







share|cite|improve this question














Let A, B, and C be finite sets. Prove or disprove:



If $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then $A, B$, and $C$ must be pairwise disjoint.




I started with inclusion-exclusion formula



$$|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| + |A cap B cap C|$$



Hypothesis says if $|A cup B cup C | = |A| + |B| + |C|$, then expression $|A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| $, must be equal to zero. So, we have



$$ |A cap B cap C| - |A cap B| - |A cap C| - |B cap C| = 0$$
$$ |A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| tag1$$



Now, I am not sure how finish this proof. I found two ways, but I do not know if are correct.



First way



If $x in |A cap B cap C|$, then $x in |A cap B| wedge xin |A cap C| wedge x in |B cap C|$.



So if we count the cardinality of $|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$, then if $x in |A cap B cap C|$ then $x$ is counted once but on RHS $x$ is counted three times. Thus the equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.



Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.



Second way



From inclusion-exclusion formula, I know $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C |$$
I substitute in equation (1)
$$ -|A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| - |A cup B cup C | = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$$
The expression $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ cancels out.
$$ |A| + |B| + |C| + |A cup B cup C | = 0$$



And this equation is true if $A = B = C = emptyset$.

Therefore $A, B,$ and $C$ are pairwise disjoint.




My question is which way is correct and better or if there is a different method to prove the proposition. Thank you. (I am self-studying student, who is reading a textbook about discrete mathematics).









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 17 at 22:54









amWhy

190k25220433




190k25220433










asked Aug 17 at 22:44









Kapur

463




463











  • The first approach is incomplete. You did not consider the case where $Acap Bcap C$ is empty, whilst $Acap B$ is not.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:09










  • The second approach is incorrect. You got a wrong formula for the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion and should at the end simply obtain $|Acup Bcup C|-|A|-|B|-|C|=0$ (so, you proved nothing here). See answers below for correct approaches.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:11

















  • The first approach is incomplete. You did not consider the case where $Acap Bcap C$ is empty, whilst $Acap B$ is not.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:09










  • The second approach is incorrect. You got a wrong formula for the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion and should at the end simply obtain $|Acup Bcup C|-|A|-|B|-|C|=0$ (so, you proved nothing here). See answers below for correct approaches.
    – Batominovski
    Aug 17 at 23:11
















The first approach is incomplete. You did not consider the case where $Acap Bcap C$ is empty, whilst $Acap B$ is not.
– Batominovski
Aug 17 at 23:09




The first approach is incomplete. You did not consider the case where $Acap Bcap C$ is empty, whilst $Acap B$ is not.
– Batominovski
Aug 17 at 23:09












The second approach is incorrect. You got a wrong formula for the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion and should at the end simply obtain $|Acup Bcup C|-|A|-|B|-|C|=0$ (so, you proved nothing here). See answers below for correct approaches.
– Batominovski
Aug 17 at 23:11





The second approach is incorrect. You got a wrong formula for the Principle of Inclusion and Exclusion and should at the end simply obtain $|Acup Bcup C|-|A|-|B|-|C|=0$ (so, you proved nothing here). See answers below for correct approaches.
– Batominovski
Aug 17 at 23:11











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










  • Your first way is correct unless $A cap B cap C=emptyset.$

  • The equation in your second way has to be corrected as $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| + |A cup B cup C |$$ and substituting this leads to a nothing (as you use the same equation twice).

This is how I would answer this question (using inclusion-exclusion principal):

$A cap B cap Csubset A cap B$ and therefore $|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B|, |A cap C|, |B cap C|.$

Then we have
$$3|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|.$$ Now combining this with what you have already found $$|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|,$$ we can say $$|A cap B| =|A cap C| = |B cap C|=|A cap B cap C|=0 .$$






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 2




    Could you comment on the asker's work?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:35











  • @Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 17 at 23:40











  • @Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:57










  • You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 18 at 0:00

















up vote
3
down vote













Suppose $A$, $B$, $C$ are not pairwise disjoint. Then the intersection of two of them, wlog $A$ and $B$, is nonempty. Now $|A cup B| = |A| + |B| - |A cap B| < |A| + |B|$,
and $|A cup B cup C| le |A cup B| + |C| < |A| + |B| + |C|$.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:51











Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2886259%2fif-a-cup-b-cup-c-a-b-c-then-a-b-and-c-must-be-pairwise%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










  • Your first way is correct unless $A cap B cap C=emptyset.$

  • The equation in your second way has to be corrected as $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| + |A cup B cup C |$$ and substituting this leads to a nothing (as you use the same equation twice).

This is how I would answer this question (using inclusion-exclusion principal):

$A cap B cap Csubset A cap B$ and therefore $|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B|, |A cap C|, |B cap C|.$

Then we have
$$3|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|.$$ Now combining this with what you have already found $$|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|,$$ we can say $$|A cap B| =|A cap C| = |B cap C|=|A cap B cap C|=0 .$$






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 2




    Could you comment on the asker's work?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:35











  • @Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 17 at 23:40











  • @Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:57










  • You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 18 at 0:00














up vote
3
down vote



accepted










  • Your first way is correct unless $A cap B cap C=emptyset.$

  • The equation in your second way has to be corrected as $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| + |A cup B cup C |$$ and substituting this leads to a nothing (as you use the same equation twice).

This is how I would answer this question (using inclusion-exclusion principal):

$A cap B cap Csubset A cap B$ and therefore $|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B|, |A cap C|, |B cap C|.$

Then we have
$$3|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|.$$ Now combining this with what you have already found $$|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|,$$ we can say $$|A cap B| =|A cap C| = |B cap C|=|A cap B cap C|=0 .$$






share|cite|improve this answer


















  • 2




    Could you comment on the asker's work?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:35











  • @Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 17 at 23:40











  • @Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:57










  • You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 18 at 0:00












up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






  • Your first way is correct unless $A cap B cap C=emptyset.$

  • The equation in your second way has to be corrected as $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| + |A cup B cup C |$$ and substituting this leads to a nothing (as you use the same equation twice).

This is how I would answer this question (using inclusion-exclusion principal):

$A cap B cap Csubset A cap B$ and therefore $|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B|, |A cap C|, |B cap C|.$

Then we have
$$3|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|.$$ Now combining this with what you have already found $$|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|,$$ we can say $$|A cap B| =|A cap C| = |B cap C|=|A cap B cap C|=0 .$$






share|cite|improve this answer














  • Your first way is correct unless $A cap B cap C=emptyset.$

  • The equation in your second way has to be corrected as $$|A cap B cap C| = - |A| - |B| - |C| + |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| + |A cup B cup C |$$ and substituting this leads to a nothing (as you use the same equation twice).

This is how I would answer this question (using inclusion-exclusion principal):

$A cap B cap Csubset A cap B$ and therefore $|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B|, |A cap C|, |B cap C|.$

Then we have
$$3|A cap B cap C| le |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|.$$ Now combining this with what you have already found $$|A cap B cap C| = |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|,$$ we can say $$|A cap B| =|A cap C| = |B cap C|=|A cap B cap C|=0 .$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 17 at 23:14

























answered Aug 17 at 22:52









Bumblebee

9,45012449




9,45012449







  • 2




    Could you comment on the asker's work?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:35











  • @Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 17 at 23:40











  • @Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:57










  • You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 18 at 0:00












  • 2




    Could you comment on the asker's work?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:35











  • @Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 17 at 23:40











  • @Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:57










  • You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
    – Bumblebee
    Aug 18 at 0:00







2




2




Could you comment on the asker's work?
– amWhy
Aug 17 at 22:56




Could you comment on the asker's work?
– amWhy
Aug 17 at 22:56












@Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
– Kapur
Aug 17 at 23:35





@Bumblebee In which case is first way correct unless $A cap B cap C = emptyset$? So, we substitute and get $3(|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C| ) leq |A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|$ and this is have only one solution if $|A cap B| = |A cap C| = |B cap C| = 0$, then $|A cap B cap C| = 0$. Therefore A,B, and C are pairwise dosjoint. Am I correct?
– Kapur
Aug 17 at 23:35













@Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
– Bumblebee
Aug 17 at 23:40





@Kapur: If $A cap B cap C = emptyset,$ then you can not take an element $x$ from that. Therefore you have to consider that possibility separately.
– Bumblebee
Aug 17 at 23:40













@Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
– Kapur
Aug 17 at 23:57




@Bumblebee: So I have to suppose $x in A$, then $x in B$, then $x in C$, then $x in A cap B$ and so on, until $x in A cap B cap C$ , together 8 possibilities? I know, this approach is not good, but i want find my mistake.
– Kapur
Aug 17 at 23:57












You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
– Bumblebee
Aug 18 at 0:00




You don't need to consider cases here. If $A cap B cap C = emptyset$ then your first equation immediately give you $|A cap B| + |A cap C| + |B cap C|=0$ which proves the pairwise disjointedness.
– Bumblebee
Aug 18 at 0:00










up vote
3
down vote













Suppose $A$, $B$, $C$ are not pairwise disjoint. Then the intersection of two of them, wlog $A$ and $B$, is nonempty. Now $|A cup B| = |A| + |B| - |A cap B| < |A| + |B|$,
and $|A cup B cup C| le |A cup B| + |C| < |A| + |B| + |C|$.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:51















up vote
3
down vote













Suppose $A$, $B$, $C$ are not pairwise disjoint. Then the intersection of two of them, wlog $A$ and $B$, is nonempty. Now $|A cup B| = |A| + |B| - |A cap B| < |A| + |B|$,
and $|A cup B cup C| le |A cup B| + |C| < |A| + |B| + |C|$.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 3




    Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:51













up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









Suppose $A$, $B$, $C$ are not pairwise disjoint. Then the intersection of two of them, wlog $A$ and $B$, is nonempty. Now $|A cup B| = |A| + |B| - |A cap B| < |A| + |B|$,
and $|A cup B cup C| le |A cup B| + |C| < |A| + |B| + |C|$.






share|cite|improve this answer












Suppose $A$, $B$, $C$ are not pairwise disjoint. Then the intersection of two of them, wlog $A$ and $B$, is nonempty. Now $|A cup B| = |A| + |B| - |A cap B| < |A| + |B|$,
and $|A cup B cup C| le |A cup B| + |C| < |A| + |B| + |C|$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 17 at 22:50









Robert Israel

305k22201443




305k22201443







  • 3




    Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:51













  • 3




    Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
    – amWhy
    Aug 17 at 22:56










  • @RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
    – Kapur
    Aug 17 at 23:51








3




3




Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
– amWhy
Aug 17 at 22:56




Could you comment also in your answer on the asker's work in the question?
– amWhy
Aug 17 at 22:56












@RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
– Kapur
Aug 17 at 23:51





@RobertIsrael Thank you. I know about contradiction a litle bit, but in the book what I'm reading is this topic after this example. So i prefer directly proof, but i get it, and it's easier than directly proof.
– Kapur
Aug 17 at 23:51













 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2886259%2fif-a-cup-b-cup-c-a-b-c-then-a-b-and-c-must-be-pairwise%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

1st Magritte Awards