When I took a math foundations class we only did naive set theory and took as an axiom that the empty set is a member of every set. The book had formal set theory and thus listed the ZFC axioms. One of them was that the empty set exists and that it was a member of every set. I've looked at a couple of listing of the axioms on the net and they only give the existence of the empty set.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

To prepare for graduate analysis (I start grad school in a week), I've been reading through Rudin'sPrinciples of Mathematical Analysis. I noticed today that an exercise in the book is to prove that the empty set is a member of every set.

I'm not asking for the solution, but I was wondering how one would go about proving this. Whenever you prove subsets, you chase elements. But the empty set has no elements. Are there other methods of proving subsets?

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

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

# The empty set

Loading...

Similar Threads - empty | Date |
---|---|

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

Infimum and supremum of empty set | Jul 3, 2015 |

Salmon's 'proof' for the existence of the empty set | Nov 10, 2014 |

Empty set disjoint with itself paradoxical? | Oct 24, 2014 |

Cardinality of empty set | Sep 11, 2013 |

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