AΔB=def{x∣(x∈A∨x∈B)∧¬(x∈A∧x∈B)}={x∣(x∈A∨x∈B)∧(¬(x∈A)∨¬(x∈B))} (de Morgan’s rule)
={x∣((x∈A∨x∈B)∧(¬(x∈A)))∨((x∈A∨x∈B)∧(¬(x∈B)))} (distributivity law)
={x∣((¬(x∈A))∧(x∈A∨x∈B))∨((¬(x∈B))∧(x∈A∨x∈B))} (commutativity law)
={x∣((¬(x∈A)∧x∈A)∨(¬(x∈A)∧x∈B))∨((¬(x∈B)∧x∈A)∨(¬(x∈B)∧x∈B))}(distributivity law)
={x∣((⊥∨(¬(x∈A)∧x∈B))∨((¬(x∈B)∧x∈A)∨⊥)} (¬F∧F=⊥)
={x∣(¬(x∈A)∧x∈B)∨(¬(x∈B)∧x∈A)} (F∨⊥=F)
={x∣(x∈A∧¬(x∈B))∨(x∈B∧¬(x∈A))} (commutativity law)
=(A∖B)∪(B∖A) (definition of ∖ and ∪)
The claim is proved
¬F∧F is unsatisfiable, and therefore ¬F∧F=⊥
AΔB=AΔC⟹(AΔB)ΔA=(AΔC)ΔA (doing same operation on both sides of the equation)
⟺B=C (by Side Proof below)
Side Proof:
Claim: (AΔB)ΔA=BProof: Let a be x∈A and b be x∈B, and let a⊕b≡(a∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a)x∈(AΔB)ΔA⟺(a⊕b)⊕a (by definition of AΔB and definition of ⊕)
≡((a∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a))⊕a (by definition of ⊕)
≡(((a∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a))∧¬a)∨(¬((a∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a))∧a) (by definition ⊕)
≡(((a∧¬b)∧¬a)∨((b∧¬a)∧¬a))∨(¬((a∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a))∧a) (distributivity law)
≡(((a∧¬b)∧¬a)∨((b∧¬a)∧¬a))∨((¬(a∧¬b)∧¬(b∧¬a))∧a) (de Morgan’s law)
≡((a∧¬a∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a∧¬a))∨((¬(a∧¬b)∧¬(b∧¬a))∧a) (commutativity)
≡((⊥∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a∧¬a))∨((¬(a∧¬b)∧¬(b∧¬a))∧a) (F∧¬F≡⊥)
≡((⊥∧¬b)∨(b∧¬a))∨((¬(a∧¬b)∧¬(b∧¬a))∧a) (idempotence)
≡(⊥∨(b∧¬a))∨((¬(a∧¬b)∧¬(b∧¬a))∧a) (F∧⊥≡⊥)
≡(b∧¬a)∨((¬(a∧¬b)∧¬(b∧¬a))∧a) (F∨⊥≡F)
≡(b∧¬a)∨(((¬a∨b)∧(¬b∨a))∧a) (de Morgan’s law)
≡(b∧¬a)∨((¬a∨b)∧((¬b∨a)∧a)) (associativity)
≡(b∧¬a)∨((¬a∨b)∧a) (absorption)
≡(b∧¬a)∨((a∧b)∨(a∧¬a)) (distributivity law)
≡(b∧¬a)∨((a∧b)∨⊥) (¬F∧F=⊥)
≡(b∧¬a)∨(a∧b) (F∨⊥≡F)
≡b∧(¬a∨a) (distributivity law)
≡b∧(¬a∨a) (F∧¬F≡⊥)
≡b∧⊥ (F∧¬F≡⊥)
≡b (F∨⊥≡F)
⟺x∈B (by definition of b)
Therefore, ∀x(x∈(AΔB)ΔA↔x∈B), meaning A⊆B and B⊆A by definition of ⊆
Hence, (AΔB)ΔA=B by Lemma 3.2
The claim is proved.