1. ## Distributive/Associative Law Q

If I am trying to prove this:

For all sets A,B,C
(A intersection B)\C = (A\C) intersection (B\C)

If I start with proving X is a subset of Y (L.S. = R.S.), could I do the following?
(xeA ^ xeB) ^ (x/e/C)
Then using distributive law...
(xeA ^ x/e/C) ^ (xeB ^ x/e/C) <=> (A\C) intersection (B\C)

And then for Y is a subset of X...
Use the same distributive rule (backwards)

I'm wondering if this is a justified proof? If not, what would be the correct approach?

Thanks

2. ## Re: Distributive/Associative Law Q

Originally Posted by DirectorRico
If I am trying to prove this:
For all sets A,B,C
(A intersection B)\C = (A\C) intersection (B\C)

\begin{align*}(A\cap B)\setminus C&= (A\cap B)\cap C^c\\ &=(A\cap C^c)\cap (B\cap C^c) \\ &=(A\setminus C)\cap(B \setminus C) \end{align*}.

3. ## Re: Distributive/Associative Law Q

Great! Thanks Plato. +rep
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 1, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0, "math_score": 0.9945340156555176, "perplexity": 24541.820331232928}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": false, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "warc_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2017-04/segments/1484560283689.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20170116095123-00531-ip-10-171-10-70.ec2.internal.warc.gz"}