Are Disjoint Sets Truly Without Common Elements?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Townsend
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Disjoint sets, by definition, have no elements in common. The discussion clarifies that if two sets A and B are both empty, they are disjoint, as their intersection (A ∩ B) is empty. However, confusion arises when considering the empty set as an element versus a subset; the empty set is a subset of every set but is not an element of itself. The key takeaway is that disjoint sets can exist even when one or both sets are empty, as long as they do not share any elements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic set theory concepts
  • Familiarity with the definitions of subsets and intersections
  • Knowledge of the properties of the empty set
  • Ability to differentiate between elements and subsets
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the empty set in set theory
  • Learn about set operations, specifically union and intersection
  • Explore advanced set theory concepts, such as cardinality and power sets
  • Review examples of disjoint sets and their implications in mathematics
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching set theory, and anyone seeking to clarify their understanding of disjoint sets and the empty set.

Townsend
Messages
232
Reaction score
0
I have been through elementary set theory but there are still a few things that I never really understood in that class. One that keeps coming up and I still cannot resolve is this.

If two sets A and B are disjoint sets then neither is a subset of the other unless one is the empty set.

Looking at the definition of disjoint we have:

Two sets A and B are disjoint if they have no elements in common.

And we also have that the empty set is the subset of every set.

So what if we let A be the empty set and B be the empty set?

Are they disjoint then?

Or consider A={1,2,3,{}} and B={}

Now A and B are disjoint and B is a subset of A. What does that mean? They both contain the empty set, and that is a common element for every set, right. I mean in order for the empty set to be a subset of every set then every set must contain the empty set.

I think I don't really understand the concept of what an empty set is. I realize that the set with no element is the empty set but the set itself is an element, no? If I give you three sets with definitions for all the elements in them then the three sets can also be considered elements of another set right? So if one of those sets is defined to be the null set then it is still an element of another set.

So now we look at sets A and B above and we see they both contain the empty set. So they are not really disjoint and no two sets can be disjoint if they all have a common element namely the element that is the empty set.

I know that I have this all wrong but I really need to understand this concept. If someone from PF can make this as simple as possible I would really appreciate it a lot.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Townsend said:
So what if we let A be the empty set and B be the empty set?

Are they disjoint then?

yes, AnB is empty.

Or consider A={1,2,3,{}} and B={}

Now A and B are disjoint and B is a subset of A. What does that mean? They both contain the empty set, and that is a common element for every set, right. I mean in order for the empty set to be a subset of every set then every set must contain the empty set.

B does not contain the empty set, it is the empty set. B contains no elements. The empty set is a subset of every set, not an element of every set. You are confusing the two things.

I think I don't really understand the concept of what an empty set is. I realize that the set with no element is the empty set but the set itself is an element, no?

No, the empty set is not an element of itself.
 
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K