Why Is (A\C)\(B\C) Equal to (A\B)\C?
At a glance
- 1. Start with membership
Take an arbitrary element x and translate each set difference into membership and nonmembership conditions.
- 2. Simplify the left side
Because x is already outside C, excluding elements of B ∖ C is equivalent to requiring x to be outside B.
- 3. Match the right side
The resulting conditions are exactly that x belongs to A, not B, and not C.
- 4. Conclude equality
Since both sides contain precisely the same elements, the two sets are equal.
The identity is true for all sets , , and . The key is to read set difference as a membership condition: means that is in and is not in . Applying that meaning to both sides shows that they contain exactly the same elements.
Prove the identity element by element
Take any object . It belongs to the left-hand side precisely when it belongs to and does not belong to :
In the third line, the condition is already known. Therefore, for not to belong to , it must not belong to . This is the step that makes the identity work.
Because the equivalence holds for every , the two sets have the same elements, so
A shorter way to see it
Both sides can be described as “the elements of that are in neither nor .” In set notation, that description is
For the left side, first removing and then removing removes all elements of and all elements of not already removed. Together, those are exactly the elements of . For the right side, removing and then removing has the same effect. Hence both sides equal .
This argument also shows that the order in which you remove and does not matter:
Worked example
Let the universe for this example be the positive integers up to , and choose
Evaluate the left side in stages:
- .
- .
- Removing from leaves .
Now evaluate the right side:
- .
- Removing leaves .
The two sides agree. The common description gives the same result, since and .
Common mistakes
Treating set difference as symmetric. In general, is not the same as . The first keeps elements of that are not in ; the second starts with instead.
Dropping a condition too early. From alone, you cannot conclude : an element of might also be in , and then it is not in . The conclusion follows here only because membership in the left side already gives .
Ignoring parentheses. The expression specifies exactly which sets are being subtracted. Parentheses matter when translating a nested expression into membership conditions.
Checking only one example. A finite example can help you understand the operations, but it does not prove a statement for all sets. The arbitrary-element argument establishes the identity in full generality.
Spotted an error? Send a correction. Read how we write and check articles in our editorial policy.