In my book, it says(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

"We agree to regard the empty set as a subset of every set. Thus any non-empty set S has just two improper subsets, the empty set and the set S itself; all other subsets of S are proper."

Does this sound right?

I thought the improper subset is the set which is the same as the original set. Why is the empty set also an improper subset?

Later in the book it said the empty set is a subset of every set. So the empty set is a subset of the universal set. Than it said the complement of the universal set is the empty set. From this information it implies the complement of the universal set is a subset of the universal set. Which is a contradiction?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Empty set and subset?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Empty subset | Date |
---|---|

B Empty domains and the vacuous truth | Dec 26, 2017 |

What is an empty family of subsets? | Oct 10, 2012 |

Proof that empty set is subset of every set | Sep 30, 2012 |

Empty set as a subset? | Aug 28, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**