Prove that if S is a subset of A then S is an empty set.

  • Thread starter DeadOriginal
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Empty Set
So \emptyset is the unique set such that for all sets x, x \notin \emptyset.There's only one empty set. That's because a set is completely characterized by its elements. There's only one set with no elements, that's the empty set. So \emptyset is the unique set such that for all sets x, x \notin \emptyset.In summary, this conversation discusses a proof involving sets and the empty set. The proof is considered to be difficult and the participants discuss different approaches to improve it. The final proof presented considers any set A and a set S that is a subset of A. It is then shown that the empty set is a subset of S and S is a subset of the empty set
  • #1
DeadOriginal
274
2

Homework Statement


Let S be a set such that for each set A, we have S[itex]\subseteq[/itex]A. Show that S is an empty set.

3. Relevant equations
10.6 Proposition. For each set A, we have empty set [itex]\subseteq[/itex] A.

The Attempt at a Solution


Solution. Consider any set A and a set S such that S[itex]\subseteq[/itex]A. Choose any x[itex]\in[/itex]S. Then since S[itex]\subseteq[/itex]A we also have x[itex]\in[/itex]A. From proposition 10.6 we know that if x[itex]\subseteq[/itex]empty set, then x[itex]\subseteq[/itex]A. Now x is arbitrary. Thus S must be an empty set.

I feel like this proof is horrible and doesn't flow at all. Can someone give me some pointers?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
DeadOriginal said:
I feel like this proof is horrible and doesn't flow at all. Can someone give me some pointers?

Clearly [itex]\emptyset \subseteq S[/itex] and by hypothesis [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex]. Can you put this together?
 
  • #3
jgens said:
Clearly [itex]\emptyset \subseteq S[/itex] and by hypothesis [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex]. Can you put this together?

I am trying to see how this works but I don't get it.

I understand that if we can show that [itex]\emptyset \subseteq S[/itex] and [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex], then we can say that [itex]S=\emptyset[/itex] but I don't understand what you mean by, by hypothesis [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex].
 
  • #4
Nevermind. Beat to the punch.
 
  • #5
DeadOriginal said:
I am trying to see how this works but I don't get it.

I understand that if we can show that [itex]\emptyset \subseteq S[/itex] and [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex], then we can say that [itex]S=\emptyset[/itex] but I don't understand what you mean by, by hypothesis [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex].

In your own words: Let S be a set such that for each set A, we have S⊆A. The empty set is a set, yes?
 
  • #6
jgens said:
In your own words: Let S be a set such that for each set A, we have S⊆A. The empty set is a set, yes?

Let me apologize for being a bit slow with grasping this. Ever since my proof class moved into sets I've been a little slow...

Anyhow, from the way I am thinking about it, the problem is to show that there exists a set such that it is a subset of A. Then by saying that [itex]S\subseteq\emptyset[/itex] we are claiming that [itex]\emptyset[/itex] is such a set. Is that the correct way of looking at it?
 
  • #7
DeadOriginal said:
Anyhow, from the way I am thinking about it, the problem is to show that there exists a set such that it is a subset of A. Then by saying that [itex]S\subseteq\emptyset[/itex] we are claiming that [itex]\emptyset[/itex] is such a set. Is that the correct way of looking at it?

I can't make sense out of what you're saying, so could you be a little more clear?
 
  • #8
jgens said:
I can't make sense out of what you're saying, so could you be a little more clear?

I can't see how saying Let S be a set such that for each set A, we have S⊆A can lead to [itex]S\subseteq\emptyset[/itex].
 
  • #9
DeadOriginal said:
I can't see how saying Let S be a set such that for each set A, we have S⊆A can lead to [itex]S\subseteq\emptyset[/itex].

That is clearer, thank you. Do you accept that [itex]\emptyset[/itex] is a set?
 
  • #10
Yes I do.
 
  • #11
DeadOriginal said:
Yes I do.

Since [itex]S[/itex] is a subset of every set and the empty set is a set, this mean [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex] (i.e. S is a subset of the empty set). Not sure what else to say about that. If you're still confused perhaps another member could chime in and help?
 
  • #12
Ok. Here is an attempt at a better proof.

Consider any set A and a set S such that S is a subset of A. From proposition 10.6 we know that the empty set is a subset of S. Now S is a subset of every set A so it follows that S is a subset of the empty set. Thus we have the empty set is a subset of S and S is a subset of the empty set. Therefore S is an empty set.

Does that work?
 
  • #13
DeadOriginal said:
Ok. Here is an attempt at a better proof.

Consider any set A and a set S such that S is a subset of A. From proposition 10.6 we know that the empty set is a subset of S. Now S is a subset of every set A. It follows that S is a subset of the empty set. Thus we have the empty set is a subset of S and S is a subset of the empty set. Therefore S is an empty set.

Does that work?

Yeah. The only thing I would change is that I would say S is the empty set. The empty set is provably unique.
 
  • #14
jgens said:
Yeah. The only thing I would change is that I would say S is the empty set. The empty set is provably unique.

Done.

Thanks so much for your help! I need to stare at this till it makes more sense to me.
 
  • #15
DeadOriginal said:
Thanks so much for your help! I need to stare at this till it makes more sense to me.

Sometimes that is the only approach, haha. If you still have difficulty with the [itex]S \subseteq \emptyset[/itex] feel free to ask the other members. I just don't know how else to explain it :/
 
  • #16
DeadOriginal said:
Done.

Thanks so much for your help! I need to stare at this till it makes more sense to me.

There's only one empty set. That's because a set is completely characterized by its elements. There's only one set with no elements, that's the empty set.
 

1. What is a subset?

A subset is a set that contains elements that are also contained in another set. In other words, all the elements of the subset are also elements of the larger set.

2. What does it mean for a subset to be empty?

When a subset is empty, it means that it does not contain any elements. In other words, the subset is a set with no members.

3. How do you prove that a subset is empty?

To prove that a subset is empty, you can show that there are no elements in the subset. This can be done by either listing out all the elements of the subset and showing that there are none, or by using a proof by contradiction.

4. What is the significance of proving that if S is a subset of A then S is an empty set?

This proof shows that there are no elements in the subset S that are not also in the larger set A. This can be useful in various mathematical or scientific applications where it is important to understand the relationships between different sets.

5. Can a subset be empty if the larger set is not empty?

Yes, a subset can be empty even if the larger set is not empty. This can happen if the elements in the larger set do not match the criteria for being in the subset. For example, the set of all even numbers is a subset of the set of all integers, but the set of all odd numbers is an empty subset of the set of even numbers.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
502
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
505
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
578
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
814
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
521
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
517
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
460
Back
Top