According to my Prof, the definition of partition in Set-theory is
$S\subseteq P(A) \smallsetminus\{\emptyset\} $ is partition of A if for All $a\in A$ exists $T\in S$ unique such that $a\in T$.
According to How to prove it by Daniel J. Valleman, I see another definition of partition which as following:
Suppose A is a set and $F \subseteq P(A) $ F is called a partition of A if it has the following properties:
- UF = A.
- F is pairwise disjoint which means for all $X,Y\in F$ if X is not equal to Y then $X\cap Y = \emptyset$
- For All $X\in F$ X is not $\emptyset$
My question is how these two definitions is equivalents? I maybe can see a little the the imagination between the second property and uniqueness. and maybe I can understand the third property when we minus an Emptyset.
But I don`t see the imagination between first property to the definition above.
I am looking for clarification regarding these two definitions. Why is it right to use them both in proofs and how can we choose the best definition for our proof.
First note that the following are equivalent:
To see why, note that $\bigcup \mathcal{S} \subseteq A$ is automatic, and if you flesh out the definitions involved in the statement $A \subseteq \bigcup \mathcal{S}$, you'll see that it's precisely the first statement.
Next note that the following are equivalent:
To see why, note that the second statement is essentially the contrapositive of the first statement, but with the definition of $T \cap T' \ne \varnothing$ fleshed out as '$a \in T$ and $a \in T'$ for some $a \in A$'.
Finally, the fact that $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathcal{P}(A) \setminus \{ \varnothing \}$ is equivalent to the assertion that each $T \in \mathcal{S}$ is non-empty.