I'll assume the usual definition of set difference, 
 .
.
Let 
 . Then
. Then 
 and
 and 
 . If
. If 
 , then
, then 
 and
 and 
 . This means
. This means 
 and
 and 
 , so it follows that
, so it follows that 
 . Hence
. Hence 
 .
.
Now let 
 . Then
. Then 
 and
 and 
 . By definition of set difference,
. By definition of set difference, 
 and
 and 
 . Since
. Since 
 , we have
, we have 
 , and so
, and so 
 . Hence
. Hence 
 .
.
The two sets are subsets of one another, so they must be equal.
The proof of this is the same as above, you just have to indicate that membership, of lack thereof, holds for all indices 
 .
.
Proof of one direction for example:
Let 
 . Then
. Then 
 and
 and 
 , which in turn means
, which in turn means 
 for all
 for all 
 . This means
. This means 
 , and
, and 
 , and so on, where
, and so on, where 
 , for all
, for all 
 . This means
. This means 
 , and
, and 
 , and so on, so
, and so on, so 
 . Hence
. Hence 
 .
.