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

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeadOriginal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Empty Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if S is a subset of any set A, then S must be the empty set. The context involves set theory and properties of subsets, particularly focusing on the empty set.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the definitions of subsets and the empty set. Some express confusion about the logical flow of the proof and the relationship between S and the empty set. Others attempt to clarify the reasoning behind the hypothesis that S is a subset of the empty set.

Discussion Status

There is active engagement with various interpretations of the proof. Some participants offer suggestions for improving clarity, while others seek further explanation of the concepts involved. The discussion reflects a collaborative effort to understand the proof structure without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of understanding the uniqueness of the empty set and its properties in relation to subsets. There is also mention of the challenges faced by some in grasping the concepts as the discussion progresses into more complex territory.

DeadOriginal
Messages
274
Reaction score
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
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?
 
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].
 
Nevermind. Beat to the punch.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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].
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K