Why do the subsets in a partition have to be nonempty?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ragnarok7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Partition Subsets
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A partition of a set X consists of nonempty subsets of X, ensuring that every element x in X belongs to exactly one subset. The necessity for nonempty subsets is rooted in the definition of partitions, which are integral to generating equivalence relations and defining concepts like Riemann and Lebesgue integrals. Including empty sets in partitions would violate fundamental properties required for these mathematical constructs, necessitating that each subset must contain at least one element. This ensures that partitions can be utilized effectively in advanced mathematical applications.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of set theory and partitions
  • Familiarity with equivalence relations
  • Knowledge of Riemann and Lebesgue integrals
  • Basic concepts of limits in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the definition and properties of equivalence relations
  • Study Riemann and Lebesgue integrals in depth
  • Investigate the role of partitions in calculus and analysis
  • Learn about the implications of empty sets in set theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced mathematics, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of set theory and integration techniques.

Ragnarok7
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
"A partition of a set X is a set of nonempty subsets of X such that every element x in X is in exactly one of these subsets."

I was just wondering why the subsets must be nonempty. Is it just convention/convenient or is it because it would violate something else?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The empty set does not belong to any set of equivalence classes.
 
Ragnarok said:
"A partition of a set X is a set of nonempty subsets of X such that every element x in X is in exactly one of these subsets."

I was just wondering why the subsets must be nonempty. Is it just convention/convenient or is it because it would violate something else?

Thanks!
I think it's just a matter of definition.

Certainly, if you don't follow this, many results about partitions will need to be tweaked.
There is nothing mathematically wrong in including the empty set also when considering partitions but that is not how it has been done.
 
Partitions are used to generate equivalence relations on a set, and vice versa.

It is sometimes useful to consider partitions of the empty set itself; intuitively one feels that this partition should be unique, which is only possible if there are NO possible empty sets in a partition (convince yourself that this indeed comprises the only partition possible in the definition you gave for an empty set X).
 
Typically partitions are used to define a Riemann or Lebesgue integral.
For that to work, we need to be able to define a limit where the partition becomes infinitely fine grained, meaning each subset in the partition should be of size greater than or equal to $\varepsilon >0$.
In other words: not empty.
 
I like Serena said:
Typically partitions are used to define a Riemann or Lebesgue integral.
For that to work, we need to be able to define a limit where the partition becomes infinitely fine grained, meaning each subset in the partition should be of size greater than or equal to $\varepsilon >0$.
In other words: not empty.

Wrong kind of partition: the kind the OP is talking about might be a partition into singleton subsets, which would be fine...but such a partition would be rather unsuitable for integration.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
872
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K