Problem understanding “and”,“or” and importance of “()” in set theory I was reading the distributive law of sets (I keep coming back to basic maths when needed, forget it after some time, then come back again. Like I'm in loop):

$A\cup(B \cap C)=(A\cup B)\cap(A\cup C)$

The proof (which I'm assuming everyone knows) has a transaction between lines which baffled me , which are:

$x \in A$ or ($x\in B$ and $x\in C$)
($x\in A$ or $x\in B$) and ($x\in A$ or $x \in C$) 

in the second line, did they just applied distributive law? (in the proof of distributive law itself Oo) or Did they simple assumed "and" = "+" etc like following:

$2 X (A + B) \equiv (2XA) + (2XB)$

Another question will be :

($x\in A$ or $x\in B$) or $x\in C\implies x\in A$ or ($x\in B$ or $x\in C$)

I can just open the brackets?

It does seem quite naughty to do this sort of thing; but yes, you are allowed. But only if you know what you're doing.
However, it does not assume the result. $\cap$ and $\cup$ are set operations, whereas 'and' and 'or' are logical operations. More precisely, in logic, we can write $p \wedge q$ to mean '$p$ and $q$' and $p \vee q$ to mean '$p$ or $q$'. By use of truth-tables, we can prove things like $p \vee (q \wedge r) \leftrightarrow (p \vee q) \wedge (p \vee r)$, and these proofs have nothing specifically to do with set theory. But then these logical rules transfer across by setting $p$ to be the assertion $x \in A$, $q$ to be the assertion $x \in B$, and so on.
$+$ and $\times$ are arithmetic operators and thus yet another thing altogether from $\cap$,$\cup$ and $\wedge$,$\vee$.
