For the first set inclusion, take . Then but . Since membership in is already known, failure to lie in that relative complement forces . Hence .
Conversely, if , then and its membership in excludes it from . Therefore . The two inclusions prove the stated equality with the set intersection.
If , the definition of symmetric difference puts it in exactly one of . It is therefore in their set union and outside their set intersection, giving .
Conversely, an element of lies in at least one of the two sets but not both. It consequently belongs to or to , and hence to . Both set inclusions hold.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.