Skip to content

De Morgan’s laws

Textbook

All sets $A_i$ lie within a fixed universe $U$, with indices in a set $I$. Every complement is relative to $U$. De Morgan’s laws state:

$$U\setminus\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i=\bigcap_{i\in I}(U\setminus A_i),\qquad U\setminus\bigcap_{i\in I}A_i=\bigcup_{i\in I}(U\setminus A_i).$$

For the first identity, an arbitrary element is $x\in U$. Being outside the union means there is no index $i$ for which $x\in A_i$. Thus for every $i$, it follows that $x\notin A_i$: the element belongs to every complement. This is precisely membership in the intersection on the right. Every step is reversible, proving both inclusions.

For the second identity, $x\notin\bigcap_{i\in I}A_i$ means membership in $A_i$ fails for at least one index. Then $x\in U\setminus A_i$ for at least one index, exactly the condition for the union on the right. Again, the conditions are equivalent.

For two sets, the identities read $(A\cup B)^c=A^c\cap B^c$ and $(A\cap B)^c=A^c\cup B^c$. For an empty family, the convention is an empty union of $\varnothing$ and a relative empty intersection of $U$. Both laws still hold.

Related concepts: Set complement, Set union, Set intersection.

Every complement in an identity must use the same universe. Changing $U$ changes which elements count as external and invalidates a comparison with the previous expressions. For two sets, four membership cases exhaust the possibilities: in both, only the first, only the second, or neither. Within each case, the two sides of either identity give the same decision about whether to include the element.

In plain language

Rejecting tea and coffee has two possible meanings: neither drink, or merely a ban on having both. “Neither” requires both refusals, whereas “not both” needs at least one. Negation therefore exchanges “or” and “and”. De Morgan’s laws require clear logical brackets; otherwise a ban on one combination can close the entire buffet.

Example

Both identities are checked on the illustrative sets $U=\{1,2,3,4,5\}$, $A=\{1,2,3\}$, and $B=\{3,4\}$. Agreement in an example illustrates the proof rather than replacing it.

De Morgan’s laws

Complement of the union

The union contains 1, 2, 3, and 4. Only 5 remains outside it within U.

Step 1 of 4: Complement of the union

Read all steps
  1. Complement of the union

    The union contains 1, 2, 3, and 4. Only 5 remains outside it within U.

    U
    1excluded2excluded3excluded4excluded5included
  2. Intersection of complements

    The complements of A and B share only 5. A different route gives the same set.

    Aᶜ
    45included
    Bᶜ
    125included
    Shared
    5included
  3. Complement of the intersection

    The original intersection contains only 3. Its complement contains all other elements of U.

    U
    1included2included3excluded4included5included
  4. Union of complements

    Collecting elements from both complements gives 1, 2, 4, and 5.

    Aᶜ
    4included5included
    Bᶜ
    1included2included5included
    Union
    1included2included4included5included

Element 1 separates the two laws: belonging to $A$ excludes it from the complement of the union, while absence from $B$ includes it in the complement of the intersection. Element 3 lies in both original sets and appears in neither result. Five lies in neither set and appears in both results. These different cases prevent replacing “at least one refusal” with a demand for two refusals.

The original text of this free article is published under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Previous / next

Previous
Set complement
Next
Distributivity of set operations
  • Set membership

    What membership states, why order and repetition do not change a set, and how an empty set differs from a set containing it.

    Read article
    Set Theory
  • Set equality

    How to prove set equality element by element or through two inclusions, and why equal size is not enough.

    Read article
    Set Theory
  • Set inclusion

    How to check that every element of one set is in another, and why inclusion differs from membership.

    Read article
    Set Theory