Are Empty Sets Equal? Exploring the Concept of Equality in Mathematics

In summary: If you could, it would be easy to prove that something is a Dodge and something is a Toyota implies that some one thing is both a Dodge and a Toyota. Maybe it would help to see this if you make the variable used in the second existential claim...I am sorry, but i do not understand what you mean.
  • #1
Xidike
72
0
I want to ask that, are you empty sets equal ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Xidike said:
I want to ask that, are you empty sets equal ?
I reply, therefore I am not an empty set.
Yes, two empty sets are equal, even if you regard them as subsets of entirely different beasts. So any two power sets have a nonempty intersection.
 
  • #3
How can two Empty Sets be equal ?
take a look at this example..
1st set: Number of trees in the forest
2nd Set: Number of Student of in the class

suppose that these are empty sets.. how are they equal ? they both have different description..
 
  • #4
Xidike said:
How can two Empty Sets be equal ?
take a look at this example..
1st set: Number of trees in the forest
2nd Set: Number of Student of in the class

suppose that these are empty sets.. how are they equal ? they both have different description..
You've defined two numbers, not two sets, but passing over that...
"A whole number between 1 and 3." "Positive square root of 4." Two descriptions, equal answers.
 
  • #5
Two sets are equal if every member of the first set is also a member of the second set, and vice versa. If two empty set were not equal, there would be one element in one of the sets which is not a member of the other set, and this is impossible, since an empty set has no member at all, whether member or not member of another empty set.
 
  • #6
If two empty sets were different, one of them would contain an element

not contained in the other...
 
  • #7
Just to put my oar in: two sets, A and B, are equal if and only both statements
"if x is in A then x is in B" and "if x is in B then x is in A" are true.

If A is the empty set, then "if x is in A" is false so the statement "if x is in A then x is in B" is trivially true. If B is the empty set then "if x is in A" is false so the statement "if x is in B then x is in A" is trivially true. Therefore, if A and B are both empty, then they are equal.
 
  • #8
The empty set is unique and the following proof ascertains that.

Suppose that there is another empty set denoted by ##\emptyset'## ,then we have:

1)##\forall A[A\cup\emptyset =A]##

2)##\forall A[A\cup\emptyset' =A]##

In (1) we put ##A =\emptyset'## and we get: ##\emptyset'\cup\emptyset =\emptyset'##

In (2) we put ## A =\emptyset## and we get :##\emptyset\cup\emptyset' =\emptyset##

But since ,##\emptyset'\cup\emptyset = \emptyset\cup\emptyset' ##

We can conclude :##\emptyset'=\emptyset ##

Hence all the empty sets are equal
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Here is another proof that the empty set is unique:

Suppose again that there is another empty set denoted by,##\emptyset'##

Then we have:

1) ##\forall A[\emptyset\subseteq A]##

2)##\forall A[\emptyset'\subseteq A]##

In (1) put : ##A=\emptyset'## and we get : ##\emptyset\subseteq \emptyset']##..............3

In (2) put : ##A=\emptyset## and we get : ##\emptyset'\subseteq \emptyset]##..............4

And from (3) and ( 4) we conclude :,##\emptyset' = \emptyset##
 
  • #10
stauros said:
The empty set is unique and the following proof ascertains that.

Suppose that there is another empty set denoted by ##\emptyset'## ,then we have:

1)##\forall A[A\cup\emptyset =A]##

2)##\forall A[A\cup\emptyset' =A]##

In (1) we put ##A =\emptyset'## and we get: ##\emptyset'\cup\emptyset =\emptyset'##

In (2) we put ## A =\emptyset## and we get :##\emptyset\cup\emptyset' =\emptyset##

But since ,##\emptyset'\cup\emptyset = \emptyset\cup\emptyset' ##

We can conclude :##\emptyset'=\emptyset ##

Hence all the empty sets are equal

I don't get it: you showed ##A\cup\ B=B\cup\ A## for A,B being (supposedly)

different copies of the empty set. But

this is true for any two sets, since union is commutative; I don't see how

this shows that A=B.
 
  • #11
Bacle2 said:
I don't get it: you showed ##A\cup\ B=B\cup\ A## for A,B being (supposedly)

different copies of the empty set. But

this is true for any two sets, since union is commutative; I don't see how

this shows that A=B.

WE have :

##A\cup B= B\cup A## for all A,B

Then put :##A=\emptyset ## and ## B=\emptyset'## and we have:

##\emptyset\cup\emptyset' = \emptyset'\cup\emptyset ##

But ,##\emptyset\cup\emptyset'=\emptyset ## and ##\emptyset'\cup\emptyset =\emptyset'## as i have shown in my previous proof

Hence ##\emptyset'= \emptyset ##
 
  • #12
Those proofs strike me as a bit convoluted. The fact that all empty sets are equal is a consequence of the axiom of extensionality, which is literally the most fundamental property of sets, which says that sets are equal if and only if they have the same members. If the set A has no members and the set B has no members, then by extensionality A = B.
 
  • #13
Erland said:
. If two empty set were not equal, there would be one element in one of the sets which is not a member of the other set, and this is impossible, since an empty set has no member at all, whether member or not member of another empty set.

This is wrong as the followinf argument shows:

WE know that:

##A=B\Longleftrightarrow [(A\subseteq B)\wedge(B\subseteq A)##.

Hence:

##A\neq B\Longleftrightarrow[\neg(A\subseteq B)\vee \neg(B\subseteq A)]##.

OR

##A\neq B\Longleftrightarrow[\exists x(x\in A\wedge \neg x\in B)]\vee[\exists x(x\in B\wedge \neg x\in A)]##

Now if we put : ##A =\emptyset## and ##B=\emptyset'## ,we get that:

##\emptyset\neq \emptyset'\Longleftrightarrow[\exists x(x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[\exists x(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##

And if we assume :##\emptyset\neq \emptyset'##, then

##[\exists x(x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[\exists x(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.That implies :

##[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.Which in turn implies:

##[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##
 
  • #14
stauros said:
##[\exists x(x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[\exists x(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.That implies :

##[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.Which in turn implies:

##[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##

This argument is fallacious. You cannot infer that one and the same x is referred to by the two existential quantifers. If you could, it would be easy to prove that something is a Dodge and something is a Toyota implies that some one thing is both a Dodge and a Toyota. Maybe it would help to see this if you make the variable used in the second existential claim 'y'.
 
  • #15
MLP said:
This argument is fallacious. You cannot infer that one and the same x is referred to by the two existential quantifers. If you could, it would be easy to prove that something is a Dodge and something is a Toyota implies that some one thing is both a Dodge and a Toyota. Maybe it would help to see this if you make the variable used in the second existential claim 'y'.


Let : A= {1,2}, and B={1,2,3}.

Can you prove that :## A\neq B## , using the axiom of extensionality??.

Then you will find out that using the same or different quantifiers makes no difference
 
  • #16
stauros said:
Let : A= {1,2}, and B={1,2,3}.

Can you prove that :## A\neq B## , using the axiom of extensionality??.

Then you will find out that using the same or different quantifiers makes no difference

I am not saying that the use of the different quantifiers makes a difference, it does not. I am saying that Existential Elimination does not allow you to assume that the x referred to in the first existential claim is one and the same x as the x referred to in the second existential claim.

It is not legitimate to instanciate the first quantifier to x and then instanciate the second one to x and act like they are one and the same thing.
 
  • #17
stauros said:
This is wrong as the followinf argument shows:
Your argument shows that I was right, but perhaps that is what you meant?

stauros said:
##[\exists x(x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[\exists x(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.That implies :

##[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.Which in turn implies:

##[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##
To be clear, you should have written the two last lines as

##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##

and

##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##.

Then, the argument is correct, since

##\exists x(P(x)\vee Q(x))## and ##\exists x \,P(x)\vee\exists x\,Q(x)## are logically equivalent.
 
  • #18
Erland said:
Your argument shows that I was right, but perhaps that is what you meant?


To be clear, you should have written the two last lines as

##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##

and

##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##.

Then, the argument is correct, since

##\exists x(P(x)\vee Q(x))## and ##\exists x \,P(x)\vee\exists x\,Q(x)## are logically equivalent.

Can you support that ,by writing a complete formal proof??

Because i know that it will be useless to ask you ,where did you get the:

"and ##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##" ,part, e.t.c ,e.t.c
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Erland said:
##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')]\vee[(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##
Oops, the parenteses here are partially wrong. It should be:

##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset')\vee(x\in \emptyset'\wedge \neg x\in \emptyset )]##.
 
  • #20
stauros said:
Can you support that ,by writing a complete formal proof??

Because i know that it will be useless to ask you ,where did you get the:

"and ##\exists x[ (x\in \emptyset\vee x\in \emptyset')]##" ,part, e.t.c ,e.t.c
Well, how did you get the corresponding line, in your previous post?

If you want a complete formal proof, you must specify which formal system that should be used: which are the axioms and the rules of inference? Is a Hilbert style axiom system (and which variant in this case) or a natural deduction system (and which variant in this case) or some other kind of system?

And whatever system is used, complete formal proofs tend to be extremely lengthy. One almost always takes shortcuts. But you have a habit of questioning all possible shortcuts.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Erland said:
Well, how did you get the corresponding line, in your previous post?

If you want a complete formal proof, you must specify which formal system that should be used: which are the axioms and the rules of inference? Is a Hilbert style axiom system (and which variant in this case) or a natural deduction system (and which variant in this case) or some other kind of system?

And whatever system is used, complete formal proofs tend to be extremely lengthy. One almost always takes shortcuts. But you have a habit of questioning all possible shortcuts.

Write a formal proof supporting your argument in any system you like using any rules of inference you like ,i can follow.

There is no other way of checking whether your argument is right or wrong.

But before anything else let us give the definition of a formal proof.

A formal proof is : a finite No of statements ,where each statement is either an axiom or a theorem or a definition or a conclusion by appling a rule of inference on one or more previous statements.
 
  • #22
stauros said:
There is no other way of checking whether your argument is right or wrong.

Of course there is. It's not because something is not written as a formal proof that you can't see whether it is right or wrong. In fact, when something is not written as a formal proof, it is much easier for me to grasp the proof.

Anyway, the question has been answered. Thread locked.
 

1. What is an empty set in mathematics?

An empty set, also known as a null set, is a set that contains no elements. It is represented by the symbol ∅ or {}.

2. How is equality defined in mathematics?

In mathematics, equality is defined as the state of being equal or having the same value or quantity. It is represented by the symbol = and is used to compare two or more expressions or sets.

3. Are empty sets equal to each other?

Yes, empty sets are equal to each other because they both have no elements. This can be demonstrated through set notation as ∅ = ∅ or {} = {}.

4. Can an empty set be equal to a non-empty set?

No, an empty set cannot be equal to a non-empty set. This is because a non-empty set contains at least one element, while an empty set contains none. Therefore, they do not have the same value or quantity and are not equal.

5. Why is the concept of equality important in mathematics?

The concept of equality is important in mathematics because it allows us to compare and evaluate different mathematical expressions and sets. It also forms the basis for solving equations and proving mathematical theorems.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
12
Views
864
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
13
Views
933
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top