Relations

Proofs
From How to prove it, a structured approach by Velleman

The material here are my notes on my self

study on this marvellous book.
Relations
Theorem 4.1.3
Theorem 2
(𝐴 𝑥 𝐵 ) ∩ (𝐶 𝑥 𝐷) = (𝐴 ∩ 𝐶 ) 𝑥 (𝐵 ∩ 𝐷)
Proof
(I put my thoughts because it’s very hard to type the proofs, hence I will write my analysis)
This is a bidirectional statement, meaning that in order to prove it we need to do it in both
sides, that is if P then Q and if not Q then not P.
(The most intuitive reason I’ve come up is that we have already proved that Q equal P in
cases, but it can be that Q is true even when P is false, making our assumption false. A
worded example would be that someone likes chocolate iff they also like vanilla. It can be
that if someone likes chocolate then they also like vanilla but we won’t know for sure our
assumption to be true if we don’t prove what happens when someone does not like
vanilla -for example I hate vanilla but love chocolate!!! – meaning the form if not Q then
not P is false and hence our assumption is incorrect.)
A rough proof preview could be as follows.
Let x and y be arbitrary and (x,y) be an ordered pair that belongs to (AxB) and (CxD) (we
suppose (A x B) and (C x D)) we divide it in cases.
Case 1. (x,y) belongs to (AxB)
Since we have already supposed the whole statement on the left then it follows that if the
first part is true then the second is true -hence x belongs to A and y belongs to B and x
belongs to C and y belongs to D. It can be arranged as x belongs to A and B and y belongs
to C and D. Since that’s definition of our desired product we finish.
Case 2. (x,y) belongs to (CxD)
It follows the same as the first one but with (x,y) belonging to the CxD
 Relations
Proofs
From How to prove it, a structured approach by Velleman
We have proved in the form if P then Q. We need to prove it the other way around to
finish our proof.
Suppose not Q -being Q the right hand side.
Then we follow to a contradiction proof.
To be honest is almost the same form as the first one so I leave the proof to the reader
HINT (Remember the logical gates and ordered product definition)

Theorem 3
(𝐴 𝑥 𝐵 ) ∪ (𝐶 𝑥 𝐷) ⊆ (𝐴 ∪ 𝐶 ) 𝑥 (𝐵 ∪ 𝐷)
This is true, of course. The proof is similar but note the conector, instead of a bidirectional
we have only a directional meaning we only need to prove in the form if P then Q meaning
we don’t need to do it in the other around.
(Sorry, I died)