Last edited:
Sounds right. Jim Franklin seems to prefer to drill us into using slightly more formalised proofs though.if i remember its easier to prove by Venn Diagrams
havent heard of him before, but had a look at your course outline you lucky fucks will have peter brownSounds right. Jim Franklin seems to prefer to drill us into using slightly more formalised proofs though.
I just wasn't sure how to manipulate my x in. And yet again I forgot that you had to prove they are a mutual subset of each other to be equal sets.
I can see why it is but how would you prove it
Nice that makes sense. I'm just used to element wise because the lecturers said so lol.Another way of doing it that doesn't involve taking elements is:
Where the step follows from applying the question assumptions to replace with the supersets respectively.
A way to show RHS is a subset of LHS.Nice that makes sense. I'm just used to element wise because the lecturers said so lol.
___________________________
The answers don't even tell me if it's true or false so I assumed it was true (because I could not find any counterexample) but then I got stuck proving the latter part.
Basically I got stuck proving the RHS is a subset of the LHS