Check this definition of a subset

  • Thread starter Thread starter setvectorgroup
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A set T is defined as a subset of a set S if every element of T belongs to S, denoted as T ⊆ S. The discussion clarifies that the definition does not explicitly refer to proper subsets, as it acknowledges that a set is its own subset. For example, if S = {1, {2}, cat}, then {cat} and {{2}} are subsets of S, while 2 is not. Additionally, the empty set Ø is considered a subset of every set.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory terminology, including subsets and proper subsets.
  • Familiarity with set notation, such as ⊆ and ⊄.
  • Knowledge of examples illustrating subsets, including the empty set.
  • Basic comprehension of mathematical definitions and their implications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of proper subsets and their definitions in set theory.
  • Explore examples of subsets and proper subsets using different sets.
  • Learn about the implications of the empty set in set theory.
  • Study the properties of subsets in relation to union and intersection of sets.
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching set theory, and anyone seeking to clarify the concepts of subsets and proper subsets in mathematical contexts.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K