Talk:De Morgan's Laws (Set Theory)/Set Difference/Difference with Intersection/Corollary
I confess I can't follow this very easily. The second and third lines seem to be the result of two operations, and I can't easily tell which provides what result. It is also unclear where $T_1 \subseteq S$ is invoked.
In fact, to be even more awkward, it needs considerable work from DM's Laws to get to the result, to such an extent that I'm not sure it can be called a "corollary" at all.
I may go away and think about this myself, see if I can do something with it. --prime mover 08:37, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
- ... that for a start. --prime mover 08:42, 24 March 2012 (EDT)
- ...ah, that's better. --prime mover 08:47, 24 March 2012 (EDT)