Set Operation

1(a). {x| x>5}

1(b). {x| 2>x>1}
1(c). {x| x<6}∪{x| x>10}

2. Statements including (a), (c), (d), (e) and (g) are true.

3(a). S2 ∪ S 3= {1,4,6,7}
3(b). S1 ∩S 4 = {4,6}
3(c). S1 ∪ S 2 ∩ S3 =¿{1,6,7}
3(d). S2 ∩S 4 =¿{4,6}

4(a). S1 ∪ S 2
4(b). S1 ∩S 2
4(c). ( S1−S 2 ¿ ∪( S2 −S 1)

5(a). Universal set= {100 people}

People who invest in stock= People who do not invest in stock=
Ac {70 people} Bc

10
20
Set B
Set A
10 60

{30 people}
5(b). Aggressive people earn on average

= $ 30,000 × 0.9× 20+$ 20,000× 0.9 ×10

20+10
=$24,000
5(c). Non-aggressive people earn on average

= $ 30,000 ×10+ $ 20,000 × 6 0

10+ 6 0
 =$21,400 (cor. to 3s.f.)
<$24,000
∴ People need to be aggressive to become wealthy.
5(d). When we simply take a look at people who invest in stock, people in Ac
($30,000) earn more than people in Set A ($27000). Thus, people in Bc
($20,000) also earn more than people in Set B ($18,000). So, it is incorrect that
people need to be aggressive to become wealthy.
5(e). It is because the article missed the ratio of people in Set A to Set B and also
people in Ac to people in Bc . As Set A: Set B=2:1 which is greater than
Ac :B c =1:6 , the former has a large proportion of people who invest in stock and
the latter has a smaller proportion of people who invest in stock. Since we can
find that people who invest in stock earn more than those who do not, non-
aggressive people (complements Ac ∧Bc ) earn less than aggressive people (Set A
& B) on average.
Gauss-Jordan Elimination

1.
[ 13 −1 0
−1 2 ]
[ 10 −1 0 R2= R2-3R1
2 2]

[ 10 0 1
1 1]
1 −1 −1 0
2.
[ 1 2 −1 6
1 0 −3 4 ]
0 −3 0 −6

[ 1 2 −1 6 R1=R1-R2
1 0 −3 4 ]
0 −3 0 −6

[ 0 2 2
1 0 −3 4
2 R2=R2-R3
]
1 0 0 10

[ 0 1 0 2
0 0 1 −2 ]
1 1 1
3.
[ 3 −1 3
5 −2 5 ]
 1 1 1

[ ]
0 −4 0 R2=R2-3R1
5 −2 5

[ 10 0 1
1 0 ]
4. It has no solutions.
5. It has infinite solutions.