You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Maths exam question about sets and other stuff. watch

1. http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/s.../MATH10101.pdf

B6.(i)
Prove this
(from definition of subsets)

So

=>

=>

=>

=>

So

This is true because if then its trivially true. But if

then

Because when x is in A-C its trivially true. But when x is in B-C then its in B, since . So in both cases

(Is this a good explanation, I would draw a truth table but then that would be like 9 lines of working.)

Is the last bit 75? As it seems like just using the above. Part (ii) is easy.

Oh yeah. For A2.
1. True, choose x=3-y.
2. False, choose y=-x
3. True, choose x=0
4. True, choose . Strange question.
5. False, choose y=0. Then then
so

(how do you make Z look like it is in the paper?)

P.S. Three hours? More like half an hour. Glad it is long because I have noticed that a level exams can be pain for time. FP2 was the worst as I needed to rush and think quick to make sure I had completed it making me do lots of unlogical stupid things.
2. (Original post by Simplicity)
I did this
Which means that you've assumed the result. Game over.
3. (Original post by DFranklin)
Which means that you've assumed the result. Game over.
I didn't assume result. That obvious by the definition of subsets. Okay, I will change wording.
4. (Original post by Simplicity)
This is true as x in (A-C) or x in (B-C). But if B has no common elements with C then its trivially true. If B has some or one common element of C then x is always in (A-C) so thats trivially true.
False. A = {}, B = {1,2}, C = {2}, x = 1. , B has a common element with C, but x isn't in A-C.

Note: "B has some or one common element of C" doesn't really make sense, so I'm having to guess at what you mean. But I can't see any reasonable interpretation of your words that is going to work.
5. (Original post by DFranklin)
False. A = {}, B = {1,2}, C = {2}, x = 1. , B has a common element with C, but x isn't in A-C.

Note: "B has some or one common element of C" doesn't really make sense, so I'm having to guess at what you mean. But I can't see any reasonable interpretation of your words that is going to work.
Yeah, I as thinking that.

Is there anything wrong with this
.

What I meant is this
then

Because when x is in A-C its trivially true. But when x is in B-C then its in B. So in both cases

Yeah, I changed it so it should make sense now. Thanks.
6. That is basically OK, but in a question like this you can't really ever say "{blah} is trivially true". If there's a reason, give it. If it really is obvious, just state the result. "trivially true" tends to be a red flag that means "I know this must be true but I can't see how to prove it".

More generally, I think you are trying too hard to keep things "symbolic" and not use words. If I was proving this, I'd go:

Take . Then , and either or (or both).

Suppose . Then (since ), so .

And if instead then (since the RHS contains B).

So in all cases, and we're done.

Note that although I've used words, my answer is still much shorter than yours.

http://www.peter-dixon.staff.shef.ac...ching/STDN.PDF

combined with the pdf at the bottom here (which has the same constructs and definitions required to know for the question sheet you are using);

titled elementary set theory with a universal set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_foundations

The above coupled with some questions should be a good start to getting you on the way to an organized approach (and the new foundation pdf describes a construction of induction set theoretically which will no doubt be more reason to read).
8. (Original post by DeanK22)

http://www.peter-dixon.staff.shef.ac...ching/STDN.PDF

combined with the pdf at the bottom here (which has the same constructs and definitions required to know for the question sheet you are using);

titled elementary set theory with a universal set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_foundations

The above coupled with some questions should be a good start to getting you on the way to an organized approach (and the new foundation pdf describes a construction of induction set theoretically which will no doubt be more reason to read).
I can't read more that would be impossible. I'm still trying to understand a book called An introduction to Mathematical Reasoning; numbers, sets and function. I don't see how learning more advance set theory will help.
9. (Original post by Simplicity)
I can't read more that would be impossible. I'm still trying to understand a book called An introduction to Mathematical Reasoning; numbers, sets and function. I don't see how learning more advance set theory will help.
The first one isn't exactly advanced and the second one is certainly for people who have no experience with set theory at all

### Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: July 28, 2009
Today on TSR

### He lied about his age

Thought he was 19... really he's 14

### University open days

Wed, 25 Jul '18
2. University of Buckingham
Wed, 25 Jul '18
3. Bournemouth University
Wed, 1 Aug '18
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams