Is empty set part of every set?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sozener1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Empty Set
AI Thread Summary
The empty set is a subset of every set, including the power set of any set, such as p(s). However, it is not an element of every set, and in this case, it is not an element of set d. When determining the intersection of p(s) and d, the empty set is not included as an element because it is not found in set d, despite being a subset of both p(s) and the intersection. The distinction between being a subset and being an element is crucial in set theory discussions. Thus, while the empty set is part of the power set, it does not contribute to the intersection with set d.
sozener1
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
is empty set part of every set??

you have a power set of s

represented by p(s)

and s is { x is integer and either x=<-2 or x>=5}

and you have another set d = {{-3 -2 1}, {4}, {6, 7}, {-5, 6, 9}}


when you are asked for intersection of p(s) and d in a plain maths question

am I meant to include { } the empty set as well since it is a subset of everyset?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
sozener1 said:
you have a power set of s

represented by p(s)

and s is { x is integer and either x=<-2 or x>=5}

and you have another set d = {{-3 -2 1}, {4}, {6, 7}, {-5, 6, 9}}


when you are asked for intersection of p(s) and d in a plain maths question

am I meant to include { } the empty set as well since it is a subset of everyset?

The empty set is a subset of every set. But it is not an element of every set.

In the question above, how many elements are in set d? Of those elements, which are members of p(s)?
 
sozener1 said:
you have a power set of s

represented by p(s)

and s is { x is integer and either x=<-2 or x>=5}

and you have another set d = {{-3 -2 1}, {4}, {6, 7}, {-5, 6, 9}}


when you are asked for intersection of p(s) and d in a plain maths question

am I meant to include { } the empty set as well since it is a subset of everyset?

{} is a subset of every set, so it is a subset of s. Therefore, {} is an element of p(s). However, it is clear that {} is not in set d. Therefore, {} is not an element of the intersection of p(s) and d.

Hope that answers your question.
 
The empty set is an actual element of the power set.
The empty set is also a subset of the power set.
The empty set is not an actual element of d.
The empty set is a subset of d.

The intersection considers elements of both sets, so the empty set is not an element of the intersection. But, the empty set is a subset of the intersection.

The fact that the empty set is an element of the power set means that in addition to the empty set being a subset of the power set, the "set of the empty set" is also a subset of the power set, but this is not true for d. This is the difference.
 
When speaking about sets, it's tempting to use phrases that don't have precise definitions like "is a part of" and "is contained in" or "contains". This question is a good example of why the more specific phrases "is a subset of" and "is an element of" are needed.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top