Question about element of and subset symbols

  • Thread starter Thread starter fishingspree2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Symbols
fishingspree2
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Question about "element of" and "subset" symbols

I've always thought that ∈ is defined when talking about elements in a set. For example, if A is a set and x is an element, then x ∈ A is defined. It wouldn't make sense to say x \subseteq A

In the same way, if A and B are sets and A is contained in B, then it is incorrect to say A ∈ B. We should use A\subseteq B.

Question is: say a set which contains the empty set: {Ø}
I would think we should write Ø \subseteq {Ø} because Ø is a set itself.
But at the same time Ø ∈ {Ø} looks like it could also make sense... I am slightly confused.

Can anyone shed some light on the matter? Thank you very much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


fishingspree2 said:
Question is: say a set which contains the empty set: {Ø}

You go to the trouble of distinguishing between "element of" and "subset of" and then you use the ambiguous term "contains". Tisk, tisk.
 


Specifically, fishingspree2, you are being ambiguous when you say "if A and B are sets and A is contained in B" without distinguishing the two meanings of "contained in". In "naive set theory" it is perfectly possible to have a set whose members are sets. Given that \{\Phi\} is the set whose only member is the empty set, it is correct to say that the empty set is a member of that set. And, since the empty set is a subset of any set, both \Phi\subset \{\Phi\} and \Phi\in\{\Phi\} are both valid.
 


In set theory every element of a set is a set. There are no mathematical objects but sets in set theory.
 


fishingspree2 said:
I've always thought that ∈ is defined when talking about elements in a set. For example, if A is a set and x is an element, then x ∈ A is defined. It wouldn't make sense to say x \subseteq A

In the same way, if A and B are sets and A is contained in B, then it is incorrect to say A ∈ B. We should use A\subseteq B.

Question is: say a set which contains the empty set: {Ø}
I would think we should write Ø \subseteq {Ø} because Ø is a set itself.
But at the same time Ø ∈ {Ø} looks like it could also make sense... I am slightly confused.

Can anyone shed some light on the matter? Thank you very much.

Both are true, in the one case,
x \mbox{ is a set} \Rightarrow ( \emptyset \subseteq x)
and the other,
x \in \{ \emptyset \} \Leftrightarrow x = \emptyset.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...

Similar threads

Back
Top