Check this definition of a subset

  • Thread starter Thread starter setvectorgroup
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
AI Thread Summary
A set T is defined as a subset of set S if every element of T is also an element of S, denoted as T ⊆ S. The discussion raises a question about whether the definition implies a proper subset, as it mentions that a set is considered a subset of itself. Participants clarify that the definition does not contradict itself, noting that a subset can include all elements of S. The distinction between subsets and proper subsets is acknowledged but not explicitly defined in the original statement. Overall, the definition emphasizes that Ø is a subset of every set.
setvectorgroup
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



"We say a set T is a subset of a set S if every element of T also belongs to S( i.e T consists of some of the elements of S). We write T ⊆ S if T is a subset of S and T ⊄ S if not. For example, if S = {1, {2}, cat}, then {cat} ⊆ S, {{2}} ⊆ S, 2 ⊄ S.

As another example, the subsets of {1,2} are {1,2}, {1}, {2}, Ø.

By convention, Ø is a subset of every set."

The Attempt at a Solution



Is the definition above describing a proper subset without mentioning it by name? Because the bold part of the text above seems to be alluding to T < S. But the italicized part is saying that a set is its own subset.

The reason I ask this because I have a problem that I don't know how to approach because the above quote is confusing me a bit.

Thanks.

edit: I meant to start my title with "Please', but somehow forgot to put it there. Sorry for that infraction :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I wouldn't interpret that definition as referring to a proper subset. The part in italics seems to make it pretty clear that it considers every set to be a subset of itself.

I don't think the part in bold contradicts that. It says that a subset of S must consist of some of the elements of S, but it doesn't say the subset can't contain all the elements of S.
 
Pagan Harpoon said:
I wouldn't interpret that definition as referring to a proper subset. The part in italics seems to make it pretty clear that it considers every set to be a subset of itself.

I don't think the part in bold contradicts that. It says that a subset of S must consist of some of the elements of S, but it doesn't say the subset can't contain all the elements of S.

Thank You, Pagan Harpoon.
 
Back
Top