DOCSLIB.ORG

Finite and Infinite Sets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter 9 Finite and Infinite Sets 9.1 FiniteSets Preview Activity 1 (Equivalent Sets, Part 1) 1. Let A and B be sets and let f be a function from A to B. .f A B/. Carefully complete each of the following using appropriate quantifiers:W ! (If necessary, review the material in Section 6.3.) (a) The function f is an injection provided that :::: (b) The function f is not an injection provided that :::: (c) The function f is a surjection provided that :::: (d) The function f is not a surjection provided that :::: (e) The function f is a bijection provided that :::: Definition. Let A and B be sets. The set A is equivalent to the set B provided that there exists a bijection from the set A onto the set B. In thiscase, wewrite A B. When A B, we also say that the set A is in one-to-one correspondence with the set B and that the set A has the same cardinality as the set B. Note: When A is not equivalent to B, we write A B. 6 2. For each of the following, use the definition of equivalent sets to determine if the first set is equivalent to the second set. 452 9.1. Finite Sets 453 (a) A 1;2;3 and B a;b;c D f g D f g (b) C 1;2 and B a;b;c D f g D f g (c) X 1;2;3;:::;10 and Y 57;58;59;:::;66 D f g D f g 3. Let DC be the set of all odd natural numbers. Prove that the function f N DC defined by f .x/ 2x 1, for all x N, is a bijection andW hence! that N D . D 2 C 4. Let RC be the set of all positive real numbers. Prove that the function x g R RC defined by g.x/ e , for all x R is a bijection and hence, thatW R! R . D 2 C Preview Activity 2 (Equivalent Sets, Part 2) 1. Review Theorem 6.20 in Section 6.4, Theorem 6.26 in Section 6.5, and Ex- ercise (9) in Section 6.5. 2. Prove each part of the following theorem. Theorem 9.1. Let A, B, and C be sets. (a) For each set A, A A. (b) For all sets A and B, if A B, then B A. (c) For all sets A, B, and C , if A B and B C , then A C . Equivalent Sets In Preview Activity 1, we introduced the concept of equivalent sets. The motiva- tion for this definitionwas to have a formal method for determining whether or not two sets “have the same number of elements.” This idea was described in terms of a one-to-one correspondence (a bijection) from one set onto the other set. Thisidea may seem simple for finite sets, but as we will see, this idea has surprising conse- quences when we deal with infinite sets. (We will soon provide precise definitions for finite and infinite sets.) Technical Note: The three properties we proved in Theorem 9.1 in Preview Ac- tivity 2 are very similar to the concepts of reflexive, symmetric, and transitive re- lations. However, we do not consider equivalence of sets to be an equivalence 454 Chapter 9. Finite and Infinite Sets relation on a set U since an equivalence relation requires an underlying (universal) set U . In this case, our elements would be the sets A, B, and C , and these would then have to subsets of some universal set W (elements of the power set of W ). For equivalence of sets, we are not requiring that the sets A, B, and C be subsets of the same universal set. So we do not use the term relation in regards to the equivalence of sets. However, if A and B are sets and A B, then we often say that A and B are equivalent sets. Progress Check 9.2 (Examples of Equivalent Sets) We will use the definition of equivalent sets from in Preview Activity 1 in all parts of this progress check. It is no longer sufficient to say that two sets are equivalent by simply saying that the two sets have the same number of elements. 1. Let A 1;2;3;:::;99;100 and let B 351;352;353;:::;449;450 . D f g D f g Define f A B by f.x/ x 350, for each x in A. Prove that f is a bijection fromW ! the set A to theD set CB and hence, A B. 2. Let E be the set of all even integers and let D be the set of all odd integers. Prove that E D by proving that F E D, where F .x/ x 1, for W ! D C all x E, is a bijection. 2 3. Let .0; 1/ be the open interval of real numbers between 0 and 1. Similarly, if b R with b>0, let .0;b/ be the open interval of real numbers between 0 2 and b. Prove that the function f .0; 1/ .0;b/ by f .x/ bx, for all x .0; 1/, W ! D 2 is a bijection and hence .0; 1/ .0;b/. In Part (3) of Progress Check 9.2, notice that if b>1, then .0; 1/ is a proper subset of .0;b/ and .0; 1/ .0;b/. Also, in Part (3) of Preview Activity 1, we proved that the set D of all odd natural numbers is equivalent to N, and we know that D is a proper subset of N. These results may seem a bit strange, but they are logical consequences of the definition of equivalent sets. Although we have not defined the terms yet, we will see that one thing that will distinguish an infinite set from a finite set is that an infinite set can be equivalent to one of its proper subsets, whereas a finite set cannot be equivalent to one of its proper subsets. 9.1. Finite Sets 455 Finite Sets In Section 5.1, we defined the cardinality of a finite set A, denoted by card .A/, to be the number of elements in the set A. Now that we know about functions and bijections, we can define this concept more formally and more rigorously. First, for each k N, we define N to be the set of all natural numbers between 1 and k, 2 k inclusive. That is, N 1;2;:::;k : k D f g We will use the concept of equivalent sets introduced in Preview Activity 1 to define a finite set. Definition. Aset A is a finite set provided that A or there exists a natural D ; number k such that A Nk. Asetis an infinite set provided that it is not a finite set. If A Nk, we say that the set A has cardinality k (or cardinal number k), and we write card .A/ k. D In addition,we say that the empty set has cardinality 0 (or cardinal number 0), and we write card . / 0. ; D Notice that by this definition, the empty set is a finite set. In addition, for each k N, the identity function on N is a bijection and hence, by definition, the set 2 k Nk is a finite set with cardinality k. Theorem 9.3. Any set equivalent to a finite nonempty set A is a finite set and has the same cardinality as A. Proof. Suppose that A is a finite nonempty set, B is a set, and A B. Since A is a finite set, there exists a k N such that A N . We also have assumed that 2 k A B and so by part (b) of Theorem 9.1 (in Preview Activity 2), we can conclude thatB A. Since A N , we can use part (c) of Theorem 9.1 to conclude that k B Nk. Thus, B is finite and has the same cardinality as A. It may seem that we have done a lot of work to prove an “obvious” result in Theorem 9.3. The same may be true of the remaining results in this section, which give further results about finite sets. One of the goals is to make sure that the con- cept of cardinality for a finite set corresponds to our intuitive notion of the number of elements in the set. Another important goal is to lay the groundwork for a more rigorous and mathematical treatment of infinite sets than we have encountered be- fore. Along the way, we will see the mathematical distinction between finite and infinite sets. 456 Chapter 9. Finite and Infinite Sets The following two lemmas will be used to prove the theorem that states that every subset of a finite set is finite. Lemma 9.4. If A is a finite set and x A, then A x is a finite set and … [ f g card.A x / card.A/ 1. [ f g D C Proof. Let A be a finite set and assume card.A/ k, where k 0 or k N. Assume x A. D D 2 … If A , then card.A/ 0 and A x x , which is equivalent to N1. Thus, A Dx ; is finite with cardinalityD 1,[ which f g D equals f g card.A/ 1. [ f g C If A , then A N , for some k N. This means that card.A/ k, and ¤ ; k 2 D there exists a bijection f A Nk.
Recommended publications
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory

    1 Elementary Set Theory

    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
  • GTI Diagonalization

    GTI Diagonalization

    GTI Diagonalization A. Ada, K. Sutner Carnegie Mellon University Fall 2017 1 Comments Cardinality Infinite Cardinality Diagonalization Personal Quirk 1 3 “Theoretical Computer Science (TCS)” sounds distracting–computers are just a small part of the story. I prefer Theory of Computation (ToC) and will refer to that a lot. ToC: computability theory complexity theory proof theory type theory/set theory physical realizability Personal Quirk 2 4 To my mind, the exact relationship between physics and computation is an absolutely fascinating open problem. It is obvious that the standard laws of physics support computation (ignoring resource bounds). There even are people (Landauer 1996) who claim . this amounts to an assertion that mathematics and com- puter science are a part of physics. I think that is total nonsense, but note that Landauer was no chump: in fact, he was an excellent physicists who determined the thermodynamical cost of computation and realized that reversible computation carries no cost. At any rate . Note the caveat: “ignoring resource bounds.” Just to be clear: it is not hard to set up computations that quickly overpower the whole (observable) physical universe. Even a simple recursion like this one will do. A(0, y) = y+ A(x+, 0) = A(x, 1) A(x+, y+) = A(x, A(x+, y)) This is the famous Ackermann function, and I don’t believe its study is part of physics. And there are much worse examples. But the really hard problem is going in the opposite direction: no one knows how to axiomatize physics in its entirety, so one cannot prove that all physical processes are computable.
  • The Matroid Theorem We First Review Our Definitions: a Subset System Is A

    The Matroid Theorem We First Review Our Definitions: a Subset System Is A

    CMPSCI611: The Matroid Theorem Lecture 5 We first review our definitions: A subset system is a set E together with a set of subsets of E, called I, such that I is closed under inclusion. This means that if X ⊆ Y and Y ∈ I, then X ∈ I. The optimization problem for a subset system (E, I) has as input a positive weight for each element of E. Its output is a set X ∈ I such that X has at least as much total weight as any other set in I. A subset system is a matroid if it satisfies the exchange property: If i and i0 are sets in I and i has fewer elements than i0, then there exists an element e ∈ i0 \ i such that i ∪ {e} ∈ I. 1 The Generic Greedy Algorithm Given any finite subset system (E, I), we find a set in I as follows: • Set X to ∅. • Sort the elements of E by weight, heaviest first. • For each element of E in this order, add it to X iff the result is in I. • Return X. Today we prove: Theorem: For any subset system (E, I), the greedy al- gorithm solves the optimization problem for (E, I) if and only if (E, I) is a matroid. 2 Theorem: For any subset system (E, I), the greedy al- gorithm solves the optimization problem for (E, I) if and only if (E, I) is a matroid. Proof: We will show first that if (E, I) is a matroid, then the greedy algorithm is correct. Assume that (E, I) satisfies the exchange property.
  • COMPSCI 501: Formal Language Theory Insights on Computability Turing Machines Are a Model of Computation Two (No Longer) Surpris

    COMPSCI 501: Formal Language Theory Insights on Computability Turing Machines Are a Model of Computation Two (No Longer) Surpris

    Insights on Computability Turing machines are a model of computation COMPSCI 501: Formal Language Theory Lecture 11: Turing Machines Two (no longer) surprising facts: Marius Minea Although simple, can describe everything [email protected] a (real) computer can do. University of Massachusetts Amherst Although computers are powerful, not everything is computable! Plus: “play” / program with Turing machines! 13 February 2019 Why should we formally define computation? Must indeed an algorithm exist? Back to 1900: David Hilbert’s 23 open problems Increasingly a realization that sometimes this may not be the case. Tenth problem: “Occasionally it happens that we seek the solution under insufficient Given a Diophantine equation with any number of un- hypotheses or in an incorrect sense, and for this reason do not succeed. known quantities and with rational integral numerical The problem then arises: to show the impossibility of the solution under coefficients: To devise a process according to which the given hypotheses or in the sense contemplated.” it can be determined in a finite number of operations Hilbert, 1900 whether the equation is solvable in rational integers. This asks, in effect, for an algorithm. Hilbert’s Entscheidungsproblem (1928): Is there an algorithm that And “to devise” suggests there should be one. decides whether a statement in first-order logic is valid? Church and Turing A Turing machine, informally Church and Turing both showed in 1936 that a solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible for the theory of arithmetic. control To make and prove such a statement, one needs to define computability. In a recent paper Alonzo Church has introduced an idea of “effective calculability”, read/write head which is equivalent to my “computability”, but is very differently defined.
  • Sets, Functions

    Sets, Functions

    Sets 1 Sets Informally: A set is a collection of (mathematical) objects, with the collection treated as a single mathematical object. Examples: • real numbers, • complex numbers, C • integers, • All students in our class Defining Sets Sets can be defined directly: e.g. {1,2,4,8,16,32,…}, {CSC1130,CSC2110,…} Order, number of occurence are not important. e.g. {A,B,C} = {C,B,A} = {A,A,B,C,B} A set can be an element of another set. {1,{2},{3,{4}}} Defining Sets by Predicates The set of elements, x, in A such that P(x) is true. {}x APx| ( ) The set of prime numbers: Commonly Used Sets • N = {0, 1, 2, 3, …}, the set of natural numbers • Z = {…, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, …}, the set of integers • Z+ = {1, 2, 3, …}, the set of positive integers • Q = {p/q | p Z, q Z, and q ≠ 0}, the set of rational numbers • R, the set of real numbers Special Sets • Empty Set (null set): a set that has no elements, denoted by ф or {}. • Example: The set of all positive integers that are greater than their squares is an empty set. • Singleton set: a set with one element • Compare: ф and {ф} – Ф: an empty set. Think of this as an empty folder – {ф}: a set with one element. The element is an empty set. Think of this as an folder with an empty folder in it. Venn Diagrams • Represent sets graphically • The universal set U, which contains all the objects under consideration, is represented by a rectangle.
  • Cardinality of Accumulation Points of Infinite Sets 1 Introduction

    Cardinality of Accumulation Points of Infinite Sets 1 Introduction

    International Mathematical Forum, Vol. 11, 2016, no. 11, 539 - 546 HIKARI Ltd, www.m-hikari.com http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/imf.2016.6224 Cardinality of Accumulation Points of Infinite Sets A. Kalapodi CTI Diophantus, Computer Technological Institute & Press University Campus of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece Copyright c 2016 A. Kalapodi. This article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract One of the fundamental theorems in real analysis is the Bolzano- Weierstrass property according to which every bounded infinite set of real numbers has an accumulation point. Since this theorem essentially asserts the completeness of the real numbers, the notion of accumulation point becomes substantial. This work provides an efficient number of examples which cover every possible case in the study of accumulation points, classifying the different sizes of the derived set A0 and of the sets A \ A0, A0 n A, for an infinite set A. Mathematics Subject Classification: 97E60, 97I30 Keywords: accumulation point; derived set; countable set; uncountable set 1 Introduction The \accumulation point" is a mathematical notion due to Cantor ([2]) and although it is fundamental in real analysis, it is also important in other areas of pure mathematics, such as the study of metric or topological spaces. Following the usual notation for a metric space (X; d), we denote by V (x0;") = fx 2 X j d(x; x0) < "g the open sphere of center x0 and radius " and by D(x0;") the set V (x0;") n fx0g.
  • Infinite Sets

    Infinite Sets

    “mcs-ftl” — 2010/9/8 — 0:40 — page 379 — #385 13 Infinite Sets So you might be wondering how much is there to say about an infinite set other than, well, it has an infinite number of elements. Of course, an infinite set does have an infinite number of elements, but it turns out that not all infinite sets have the same size—some are bigger than others! And, understanding infinity is not as easy as you might think. Some of the toughest questions in mathematics involve infinite sets. Why should you care? Indeed, isn’t computer science only about finite sets? Not exactly. For example, we deal with the set of natural numbers N all the time and it is an infinite set. In fact, that is why we have induction: to reason about predicates over N. Infinite sets are also important in Part IV of the text when we talk about random variables over potentially infinite sample spaces. So sit back and open your mind for a few moments while we take a very brief look at infinity. 13.1 Injections, Surjections, and Bijections We know from Theorem 7.2.1 that if there is an injection or surjection between two finite sets, then we can say something about the relative sizes of the two sets. The same is true for infinite sets. In fact, relations are the primary tool for determining the relative size of infinite sets. Definition 13.1.1. Given any two sets A and B, we say that A surj B iff there is a surjection from A to B, A inj B iff there is an injection from A to B, A bij B iff there is a bijection between A and B, and A strict B iff there is a surjection from A to B but there is no bijection from B to A.
  • The Universal Finite Set 3

    The Universal Finite Set 3

    THE UNIVERSAL FINITE SET JOEL DAVID HAMKINS AND W. HUGH WOODIN Abstract. We define a certain finite set in set theory { x | ϕ(x) } and prove that it exhibits a universal extension property: it can be any desired particular finite set in the right set-theoretic universe and it can become successively any desired larger finite set in top-extensions of that universe. Specifically, ZFC proves the set is finite; the definition ϕ has complexity Σ2, so that any affirmative instance of it ϕ(x) is verified in any sufficiently large rank-initial segment of the universe Vθ ; the set is empty in any transitive model and others; and if ϕ defines the set y in some countable model M of ZFC and y ⊆ z for some finite set z in M, then there is a top-extension of M to a model N in which ϕ defines the new set z. Thus, the set shows that no model of set theory can realize a maximal Σ2 theory with its natural number parameters, although this is possible without parameters. Using the universal finite set, we prove that the validities of top-extensional set-theoretic potentialism, the modal principles valid in the Kripke model of all countable models of set theory, each accessing its top-extensions, are precisely the assertions of S4. Furthermore, if ZFC is consistent, then there are models of ZFC realizing the top-extensional maximality principle. 1. Introduction The second author [Woo11] established the universal algorithm phenomenon, showing that there is a Turing machine program with a certain universal top- extension property in models of arithmetic.
  • Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch

    Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch

    Axiomatic Set Teory P.D.Welch. August 16, 2020 Contents Page 1 Axioms and Formal Systems 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Preliminaries: axioms and formal systems. 3 1.2.1 The formal language of ZF set theory; terms 4 1.2.2 The Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms 7 1.3 Transfinite Recursion 9 1.4 Relativisation of terms and formulae 11 2 Initial segments of the Universe 17 2.1 Singular ordinals: cofinality 17 2.1.1 Cofinality 17 2.1.2 Normal Functions and closed and unbounded classes 19 2.1.3 Stationary Sets 22 2.2 Some further cardinal arithmetic 24 2.3 Transitive Models 25 2.4 The H sets 27 2.4.1 H - the hereditarily finite sets 28 2.4.2 H - the hereditarily countable sets 29 2.5 The Montague-Levy Reflection theorem 30 2.5.1 Absoluteness 30 2.5.2 Reflection Theorems 32 2.6 Inaccessible Cardinals 34 2.6.1 Inaccessible cardinals 35 2.6.2 A menagerie of other large cardinals 36 3 Formalising semantics within ZF 39 3.1 Definite terms and formulae 39 3.1.1 The non-finite axiomatisability of ZF 44 3.2 Formalising syntax 45 3.3 Formalising the satisfaction relation 46 3.4 Formalising definability: the function Def. 47 3.5 More on correctness and consistency 48 ii iii 3.5.1 Incompleteness and Consistency Arguments 50 4 The Constructible Hierarchy 53 4.1 The L -hierarchy 53 4.2 The Axiom of Choice in L 56 4.3 The Axiom of Constructibility 57 4.4 The Generalised Continuum Hypothesis in L.
  • The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications

    The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications

    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS KEVIN BARNUM Abstract. In this paper we will look at the Axiom of Choice and some of the various implications it has. These implications include a number of equivalent statements, and also some less accepted ideas. The proofs discussed will give us an idea of why the Axiom of Choice is so powerful, but also so controversial. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The Axiom of Choice and Its Equivalents 1 2.1. The Axiom of Choice and its Well-known Equivalents 1 2.2. Some Other Less Well-known Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice 3 3. Applications of the Axiom of Choice 5 3.1. Equivalence Between The Axiom of Choice and the Claim that Every Vector Space has a Basis 5 3.2. Some More Applications of the Axiom of Choice 6 4. Controversial Results 10 Acknowledgments 11 References 11 1. Introduction The Axiom of Choice states that for any family of nonempty disjoint sets, there exists a set that consists of exactly one element from each element of the family. It seems strange at first that such an innocuous sounding idea can be so powerful and controversial, but it certainly is both. To understand why, we will start by looking at some statements that are equivalent to the axiom of choice. Many of these equivalences are very useful, and we devote much time to one, namely, that every vector space has a basis. We go on from there to see a few more applications of the Axiom of Choice and its equivalents, and finish by looking at some of the reasons why the Axiom of Choice is so controversial.
  • Algorithms, Turing Machines and Algorithmic Undecidability

    Algorithms, Turing Machines and Algorithmic Undecidability

    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2021:7 Algorithms, Turing machines and algorithmic undecidability Agnes Davidsdottir Examensarbete i matematik, 15 hp Handledare: Vera Koponen Examinator: Martin Herschend April 2021 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Algorithms . .1 1.2 Formalisation of the concept of algorithms . .1 2 Turing machines 3 2.1 Coding of machines . .4 2.2 Unbounded and bounded machines . .6 2.3 Binary sequences representing real numbers . .6 2.4 Examples of Turing machines . .7 3 Undecidability 9 i 1 Introduction This paper is about Alan Turing's paper On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem, which was published in 1936. In his paper, he introduced what later has been called Turing machines as well as a few examples of undecidable problems. A few of these will be brought up here along with Turing's arguments in the proofs but using a more modern terminology. To begin with, there will be some background on the history of why this breakthrough happened at that given time. 1.1 Algorithms The concept of an algorithm has always existed within the world of mathematics. It refers to a process meant to solve a problem in a certain number of steps. It is often repetitive, with only a few rules to follow. In more recent years, the term also has been used to refer to the rules a computer follows to operate in a certain way. Thereby, an algorithm can be used in a plethora of circumstances. The word might describe anything from the process of solving a Rubik's cube to how search engines like Google work [4].
  • 17 Axiom of Choice

    17 Axiom of Choice

    Math 361 Axiom of Choice 17 Axiom of Choice De¯nition 17.1. Let be a nonempty set of nonempty sets. Then a choice function for is a function f sucFh that f(S) S for all S . F 2 2 F Example 17.2. Let = (N)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f by F P f;g f(S) = the least element of S: Example 17.3. Let = (Z)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f by F P f;g f(S) = ²n where n = min z z S and, if n = 0, ² = min z= z z = n; z S . fj j j 2 g 6 f j j j j j 2 g Example 17.4. Let = (Q)r . Then we can de¯ne a choice function f as follows. F P f;g Let g : Q N be an injection. Then ! f(S) = q where g(q) = min g(r) r S . f j 2 g Example 17.5. Let = (R)r . Then it is impossible to explicitly de¯ne a choice function for . F P f;g F Axiom 17.6 (Axiom of Choice (AC)). For every set of nonempty sets, there exists a function f such that f(S) S for all S . F 2 2 F We say that f is a choice function for . F Theorem 17.7 (AC). If A; B are non-empty sets, then the following are equivalent: (a) A B ¹ (b) There exists a surjection g : B A. ! Proof. (a) (b) Suppose that A B.