List of set identities and relations

This article lists mathematical properties and laws of sets, involving the set-theoretic operations of union, intersection, and complementation and the relations of set equality and set inclusion. It also provides systematic procedures for evaluating expressions, and performing calculations, involving these operations and relations.

The binary operations of set union () and intersection () satisfy many identities. Several of these identities or "laws" have well established names.

Notation

Throughout this article, capital letters such as and will denote sets and will denote the power set of If it is needed then unless indicated otherwise, it should be assumed that denotes the universe set, which means that all sets that are used in the formula are subsets of In particular, the complement of a set will be denoted by where unless indicated otherwise, it should be assumed that denotes the complement of in (the universe)

For sets and define:

The symmetric difference of and is:[1][2]

and the complement of a set is:

where This definition may depend on context. For instance, had been declared as a subset of with the sets and not necessarily related to each other in any way, then would likely mean instead of

Algebra of sets

A family of subsets of a set is said to be an algebra of sets if and for all all three of the sets and are elements of [3] The article on this topic lists set identities and other relationships these three operations.

Every algebra of sets is also a ring of sets[3] and a π-system.

Algebra generated by a family of sets

Given any family of subsets of there is a unique smallest[note 1] algebra of sets in containing [3] It is called the algebra generated by and we'll denote it by This algebra can be constructed as follows:[3]

  1. If then and we're done. Alternatively, if is empty then may be replaced with or and continue with the construction.
  2. Let be the family of all sets in together with their complements (taken in ).
  3. Let be the family of all possible finite intersections of sets in [note 2]
  4. Then the algebra generated by is the set consisting of all possible finite unions of sets in

Basic set relationships

Let and be subsets of

Commutativity:[4]
Associativity:[4]
Distributivity:[4]
Identity:[4]
Complement:[4]
Idempotent:[4]
Domination:[4]
Absorption laws:

Complements

Intersection can be expressed in terms of set difference:

Set subtraction and the empty set:[4]

Complements in a universe set

Assume that

(by definition of this notation)
De Morgan's laws:
Double complement or involution law:
Complement laws for the universe set and the empty set:
Uniqueness of complements:
  • If and then
Complements and set subtraction

Subset inclusion

The following are equivalent:[4]

Inclusion is a partial order

In words, the following three properties says that the binary relation of inclusion is a partial order.[4]

Reflexivity:
Antisymmetry:
  • and if and only if
Transitivity:
  • If and then
Lattice properties

The following proposition says that for any set the power set of ordered by inclusion, is a bounded lattice, and hence together with the distributive and complement laws above, show that it is a Boolean algebra.

Existence of a least element and a greatest element:
Existence of joins:[4]
  • If and then
Existence of meets:[4]
  • If and then
Other properties
  • If and then [4]
  • If then

Multiple set operations

Expressing basic set operations

Identities involving two set operations

In the left hand sides of the following identities, is the Left most set, is the Middle set, and is the Right most set.

Identities involving set subtraction followed by a second set operation
  • So if then


[5]
Identities involving a set operation followed by set subtraction


[5]
If then [5]

Arbitrary families of sets

Let and be families of sets. Whenever the assumption is needed, then all indexing sets, such as and are assumed to be non-empty.

Definitions

Arbitrary unions defined
[4]

 

 

 

 

(Def. 1)

If then which is somethings called the nullary union convention (despite being called a convention, this equality follows from the definition).
Arbitrary intersections defined
If then[4]

 

 

 

 

(Def. 2)

Nullary intersections
If then
where every possible thing in the universe vacuously satisfied the condition: "if then ". Consequently, consists of everything in the universe.
So if and:
  1. if you're working in a model in which there exists some universe set then
  2. otherwise, if you're working in a model in which "the class of all things " is not a set (by far the most common situation) then is undefined. This is because consists of everything, which makes a proper class and not a set.
Assumption: Henceforth, whenever a formula requires some indexing set to be non-empty in order for an arbitrary intersection to be well-defined, then this will automatically be assumed without mention.
A consequence of this is the following assumption/definition:
A finite intersection of sets or an intersection of finitely many sets refers to the intersection of a finite collection of one or more sets.
Some authors adopt the so called nullary intersection convention, which is the convention that an empty intersection of sets is equal to some canonical set. In particular, if all sets are subsets of some set then some author may declare that the empty intersection of these sets be equal to However, the nullary intersection convention isn't as commonly accepted and this article will not adopt it (this is due to the fact that unlike the empty union, the value of the empty intersection depends on X so if there are multiple sets under consideration, which is commonly the case, then the value of the empty intersection risks becoming ambiguous).

Commutativity and associativity

[4]
[4]
Unions of unions and intersections of intersections
[4]
[4]
[4]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 2a)

[4]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 2b)

and if then also:[note 3]

[4]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 2c)

[4]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 2d)

Binary intersection of arbitrary unions

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 3a)

[5]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 3b)

Importantly, if then in general, (see this[note 4] footnote for an example). The single union on the right hand side must be over all pairs : The same is usually true for other similar non-trivial set equalities and relations that depend on two (potentially unrelated) indexing sets and (such as Eq. 4b or Eq. 7g[5]). Two exceptions are Eq. 2c (unions of unions) and Eq. 2d (intersections of intersections), but both of these are among the most trivial of set equalities and moreover, even for these equalities there is still something that must be proven.[note 3]

Binary union of arbitrary intersections

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 4a)

[5]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 4b)

Arbitrary intersections and arbitrary unions

The following inclusion always holds:

 

 

 

 

(Inclusion 1 ∪∩ ⊆ ∩∪)

In general, equality need not hold and moreover, the right hand side depends on how, for each fixed the sets are labelled (see this footnote[note 5] for an example) and the analogous statement is also true of the left hand side as well. Equality can hold under certain circumstances, such as in 7e and 7f, which are respectively the special cases where and (for 7f, and are swapped).


For an equality of sets that extends the distributive laws, an approach other than just switching and is needed. Suppose that for each there is some non-empty index set and for each let be any set (for example, with use for all and use for all and all ). Let

be the Cartesian product, which can be interpreted as the set of all functions such that for every Then

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 5 ∩∪ → ∪∩)

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 6 ∪∩ → ∩∪)

where


Example application: In the particular case where all are equal (that is, for all which is the case with the family for example), then letting denote this common set, this set will be ; that is will be the set of all functions of the form The above set equalities Eq. 5 ∩∪ → ∪∩ and Eq. 6 ∪∩ → ∩∪, respectively become:

  • [4]
  • [4]

which when combined with Inclusion 1 ∪∩ ⊆ ∩∪ implies:

where the indices and (for ) are used on the right hand side while and (for ) are used on the left hand side.


Example application: To apply the general formula to the case of and use and let for all and let for all Every map can be bijectively identified with the pair (the inverse sends to the map defined by and ; this is technically just a change of notation). Expanding and simplifying the left hand side of Eq. 5 ∩∪ → ∪∩, which recall was

gives

and doing the same to the right hand side gives:

Thus the general identity Eq. 5 ∩∪ → ∪∩ reduces down to the previously given set equality Eq. 3b:

Distributing subtraction

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7a)

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7b)

       (De Morgan's law)[5]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7c)

       (De Morgan's law)[5]

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7d)

The following set equalities can be deduced from the equalities 7a - 7d above (see this note on why the following equalties are atypical):

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7e)

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7f)

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7g)

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 7h)

Distributing products

  • If then
If then in general (e.g. if and with all sets equal to then and ) so only the case is useful.
  • More generally,

Maps and sets

Definitions

Let be any function, where we denote its domain by and denote its codomain by

Many of the identities below do not actually require that the sets be somehow related to 's domain or codomain (i.e. to or ) so when some kind of relationship is necessary then it will be clearly indicated. Because of this, in this article, if S is declared to be "any set," and it is not indicated that must be somehow related to or (say for instance, that it be a subset or ) then it is meant that is truly arbitrary.[note 6] This generality is useful in situations where is a map between two subsets and of some larger sets and and where the set might not be entirely contained in and/or (e.g. if all that is known about is that ); in such a situation it may be useful to know what can and cannot be said about and/or without having to introduce a (potentially unnecessary) intersection such as: and/or

Images and preimages of sets

If is any set then by definition, the preimage of under is the set:

f–1 (S) ≝ { x ∈ domain f : f(x) ∈ S }

and the image of under is:

f (S) ≝ { f(s) : sS ∩ domain f }

Denote the image or range of which is the set by or :

A set is said to be -saturated or simply saturated if which is only possible if

Compositions

If and are maps then denotes the map

    

defined by     

with and

The restriction of to denoted by is the map

with defined by sending to that is, Alternatively, where denotes the natural inclusion, which is defined by

Finitely many sets

Let be any function.

Let and be completely arbitrary sets. Assume and

Pulling set operations out of images or preimages
Image Preimage Additional assumptions on sets
[6] [4] None

Equality holds if any of the following are true:

  1. is injective.[7]
  2. The restriction is injective.
  3. [note 7]
  4. or
  5. or
  6. or
[4] None

Equality holds if any of the following are true:

  1. is injective.
  2. The restriction is injective.
  3. [note 7]
  4. [note 7]
[8][4] None

If is surjective then [note 8]

[note 9] None

Equality holds if any of the following are true:

  1. is injective.
  2. The restriction is injective.
None
None
and are functions.

Counter-examples:

  • This example shows that the set containments listed in the leftmost column of the above table can be strict/proper: Let be constant with range and let be non-empty and disjoint subsets (i.e. and which implies and ).
    • The containment is strict:
    • The containment is strict:
    • The containment is strict:
    • The containment is strict:

      where because so is not empty.

Other identities
Image Preimage Additional assumptions on sets
None
None
None
None
Equivalences and implications of images and preimages
Image Preimage Additional assumptions on sets
implies [8] implies [8] None
if and only if None
if and only if if and only if None
if and only if if and only if and
The following are equivalent:
The following are equivalent:

If then if and only if

The following are equivalent when
  1. for some
  2. for some
The following are equivalent:
  1. and

The following are equivalent when

and
The following are equivalent:
The following are equivalent:
and

Also:

  • if and only if [8]
Images of preimages and preimages of images

Let and be arbitrary sets, be any map, and let and .

Image of preimage Preimage of image Additional assumptions on sets

[8] None
[8]

Equality holds if and only if the following is true:

  1. [9][10]

Equality holds if any of the following are true:

  1. and is surjective.

Equality holds if and only if the following is true:

  1. is -saturated.

Equality holds if any of the following are true:

  1. is injective.[9][10]
None
[11]

Equality holds if any of the following are true:

[8] None
None

Arbitrarily many sets

Images and preimages of unions and intersections

Images and preimages of unions are always preserved. Inverse images preserve both unions and intersections. It is only images of intersections that are not always preserved.

If is a family of arbitrary sets indexed by then:[8]

If all are -saturated then be will be -saturated and equality will hold in the last relation above. Explicitly, this means:

     IF       for all   

 

 

 

 

(Conditional Equality 10a)

If is a family of arbitrary subsets of which means that for all then Conditional Equality 10a becomes:

     IF       for all   

 

 

 

 

(Conditional Equality 10b)

Preimage from a Cartesian product

This subsection will discuss the preimage of a subset under a map of the form For every

  • let denote the canonical projection onto and
  • let

so that which is also the unique map satisfying: for all The map should not be confused with the Cartesian product of these maps, which is by definition the map

   defined by sending       to   

Observation  If    and       then

If then equality will hold:

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 11a)

For equality to hold, it suffices for there to exist a family of subsets such that in which case:

 

 

 

 

(Eq. 11b)

and for all

Families of sets

Definitions

A family of sets or simply a family is a set whose elements are sets. A family over is a family of subsets of The power set of a set is the set of all subsets of :

If and are families of sets and if is any set then define:[12]

which are respectively called elementwise union, elementwise intersection, elementwise (set) difference, elementwise symmetric difference, and the trace/restriction of to The regular union, intersection, and set difference are all defined as usual and are denoted with their usual notation: and respectively. These elementwise operations on families of sets play an important role in, among other subjects, the theory of filters and prefilters on sets.

The upward closure in of a family is the family:

and the downward closure of is the family:

A family is called isotone, ascending, or upward closed in if and [12] A family is called downward closed if

A family is called closed under finite intersections (resp. closed under finite unions) if whenever then (respectively, ). A family is called a π-system if and is closed under finite-intersections. Every non-empty family is contained in a unique smallest (with respect to ) π-system that is denoted by and called the π-system generated by A family is called a filter subbase and is said to have the finite intersection property if and

Basic properties

Suppose and are families of sets over

Commutativity:[12]
Associativity:[12]
Identity:
Domination:

See also

Notes

  1. Here "smallest" means relative to subset containment. So if is any algebra of sets containing then
  2. Since there is some such that its complement also belongs to The intersection of these two sets implies that The union of these two sets is equal to which implies that
  3. To deduce Eq. 2c from Eq. 2a, it must still be shown that so Eq. 2c is not a completely immediate consequence of Eq. 2a. (Compare this to the commentary about Eq. 3b).
  4. Let and let Let and let Then
  5. To see why equality need not hold when and are swapped, let and let and Then If and are swapped while and are unchanged, which gives rise to the sets and then In particular, the left hand side is no longer which shows that the left hand side depends on how the sets are labelled. Had instead and been swapped (with and unchanged) then both the left hand side and right hand side would have been equal to which shows that both sides depend on how the sets are labeled.
  6. So, for instance, it's even possible that or that and (which happens, for instance, if ), etc.
  7. Note that this condition depends entirely on and not on
  8. can be rewritten as:
  9. The conclusion can also be written as:

    Citations

    1. Taylor, Courtney (March 31, 2019). "What Is Symmetric Difference in Math?". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
    2. Weisstein, Eric W. "Symmetric Difference". mathworld.wolfram.com. Retrieved 2020-09-05.
    3. "Algebra of sets". Encyclopediaofmath.org. 16 August 2013. Retrieved 8 November 2020.
    4. Monk 1969, pp. 24-54.
    5. Császár 1978, pp. 15-26.
    6. Kelley 1985, p. 85
    7. See Munkres 2000, p. 21
    8. Császár 1978, pp. 102-120.
    9. See Halmos 1960, p. 39
    10. See Munkres 2000, p. 19
    11. See p.388 of Lee, John M. (2010). Introduction to Topological Manifolds, 2nd Ed.
    12. Császár 1978, pp. 53-65.

    References

    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.