- #1

- 13

- 0

I'm not arguing for or against such an axiom... I simply want to know what the axiom actually is saying. If an empty set is not well-defined, what is it actually asserting?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter samp
- Start date

- #1

- 13

- 0

I'm not arguing for or against such an axiom... I simply want to know what the axiom actually is saying. If an empty set is not well-defined, what is it actually asserting?

- #2

- 360

- 21

The empty set contains the elements that are the intersection of two mutually exclusive events.

- #3

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

Just what you said. IfWhat exactly is a set with no elements?

What do you mean by 'mean'? i.e. what sort of semantic interpretation are you using?What does it mean?

Two sets with the same membership relation are the same set, if that's what you mean.Aren't sets entirely defined by their contents?

For example, by the condition that for anyIn what manner is a set with no contents defined?

It's asserting that an empty set exists.I simply want to know what the axiom actually is saying.

- #4

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,820

- 0

I'm not arguing for or against such an axiom... I simply want to know what the axiom actually is saying. If an empty set is not well-defined, what is it actually asserting?

The empty set is the set of McLaren F1s I own. The empty set is the intersection of the set of red things and the set of nonred things.

Sets are defined on the basis of their contents, which means that:

* The empty set makes sense (it is the set which has no elements)

* The empty set is unique (if there were two empty sets, they would contain the same things [nothing] and so be equal)

- #5

- 1,030

- 4

A set is indeed defined entirely by its elements. Which is why the empty set is unique.

- #6

- 355

- 3

After all, there is nothing in set theory to say that there is one and only one of each set. It's just that if there were multiple copies of a set, nothing in set theory could at all tell them apart.

I could potentially have a model of set theory where there are 2 empty sets but they are treated identically. Then most sets would have many equal copies. And I could only tell them apart if I had some way outside of set theory that could distinguish them.

- #7

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,820

- 0

- #8

- 161

- 0

"What exactly is a set with no elements? What does it mean? Aren't sets entirely defined by their contents? In what manner is a set with no contents defined?"

A more tangible speculative physical model might be to take a universe and toss away quanta, and patches of manifold. Supposedly nothing left, it might seem.

- #9

- 13

- 0

However, I'm still having trouble. This is really hard for me, and I feel dumb for failing to perceive something so simple. Here's my next question that may put the issue to rest, for me.

What would be a good definition for empty set, that relies in no way on a notion of a non-empty set, or a definition of a non-empty set, that relies in no way on a notion of an empty set? Surely, one of these must hold or the definitions are circular.

- #10

CRGreathouse

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 2,820

- 0

What would be a good definition for empty set, that relies in no way on a notion of a non-empty set, or a definition of a non-empty set, that relies in no way on a notion of an empty set? Surely, one of these must hold or the definitions are circular.

The empty set is the set that contains exactly those elements that are not equal to themselves.

- #11

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 963

What would be a good definition for empty set, that relies in no way on a notion of a non-empty set, or a definition of a non-empty set, that relies in no way on a notion of an empty set? Surely, one of these must hold or the definitions are circular.

??? On the contrary, if neither definition relies on the other the definitions

Share: