Can Zero Be Considered an Empty Set in Set Theory?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ferman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Empty Set Zero
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between the concept of zero and the empty set in set theory, exploring whether zero can be considered equivalent to the empty set. Participants examine definitions and implications within set mathematics and pure mathematics, addressing how these concepts interact and differ.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if a number like 23 can represent a set with 23 elements and similarly if 4 can represent a set of four elements, leading to the consideration of whether zero can be defined as the empty set.
  • Another participant suggests looking up ordinals, implying a connection to the discussion of zero and the empty set.
  • It is proposed that zero can be defined as the empty set, with subsequent numbers defined in relation to it, but the distinction between the number of sets and the number of elements is emphasized.
  • One participant argues that three empty sets are not equal to one empty set in a strict sense, but the union of three empty sets is the empty set, raising questions about definitions and operations involving empty sets.
  • Another participant reiterates the idea that while pure mathematics may treat the concept of zero differently, set mathematics allows for operations with empty sets, suggesting a more comprehensive approach.
  • A participant challenges the analogy of empty rooms and students, asserting that three empty rooms cannot be equated to one empty room due to the difference in quantity, regardless of terminology used.
  • One participant discusses the disconnect between set mathematics and pure mathematics, providing an example of dividing students among empty rooms to illustrate how set mathematics can yield a more complete understanding of the situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between zero and the empty set, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the definitions proposed, while others challenge the interpretations and implications of these definitions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and the need for clarity in terminology, as well as the potential for differing interpretations of mathematical concepts between set theory and pure mathematics.

ferman
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
My question would be:
In mathematics of set, can be 23 a set with 23 elements.
Could be 4 a set of four elements?
Then would be zero the empty set.
And if zero is the empty set, would be 3 emtpy sets equal to 1 empty set.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In mathematics nothing IS a single thing!

It is certainly possible, and done in some treatices, to DEFINE "0" to be the empty set, then define "1" to be the set whose only member is the empty set, define "2" to be the set whose only members are "0" and "1", etc. That means the "2" is a set containing 2 members and, indeed, "23" would be a set containing "23" members- but not just any such set.

I don't know what you mean by "And if zero is the empty set, would be 3 emtpy sets equal to 1 empty set." 3 sets of anything are not "equal to" (in the strict sense of "are exactly the same thing") a single set of anything- three sets are not the same as one set. Since you are talking about sets, you might mean the union of the sets: in that case, yes, the union of 3 empty sets is indeed the empty set.

Or, since you are talking about numbers, you might mean the sum of the numbers "represented" by three empty sets. In that case you would have to define such a sum. That also can be done and, with the usual definition, yes, again, the sum of "three empty sets", that is 0+ 0+ 0, is, indeed, 0 or the empty set.
 
What I would say is that the mathematics of set is more extensive and complete than the pure mathematics.
This doesn’t mean that mathematic of set and pure mathematics are different, but complementary.
0 is de empty set; a set with no one element. For example, a void room of students.
Two empty sets would be 0 + 0; for example two void room of students.
Now well, in pure mathematics, 3 void rooms of students have 0 students, and 1 void room of students are equal to 3 void rooms of students due to the total number of students is 0.
But in mathematics of set, 3 void o empty room of students a not equal than 1 void o empty room of students due to in mathematics of set we also take in mind the number of set and no alone the number of contained elements.
But much more, in mathematics of set we can operate with empty set and in pure mathematics no.
In the drawing we can see as it is possible operations with empty sets, at least in my opinion.
 

Attachments

  • Empty-sets.GIF
    Empty-sets.GIF
    6.5 KB · Views: 1,174
Another person whos probably working on a perpetual motion machine.
 
ferman said:
What I would say is that the mathematics of set is more extensive and complete than the pure mathematics.
This doesn’t mean that mathematic of set and pure mathematics are different, but complementary.
0 is de empty set; a set with no one element. For example, a void room of students.
Two empty sets would be 0 + 0; for example two void room of students.
Now well, in pure mathematics, 3 void rooms of students have 0 students, and 1 void room of students are equal to 3 void rooms of students due to the total number of students is 0.
But in mathematics of set, 3 void o empty room of students a not equal than 1 void o empty room of students due to in mathematics of set we also take in mind the number of set and no alone the number of contained elements.
But much more, in mathematics of set we can operate with empty set and in pure mathematics no.
In the drawing we can see as it is possible operations with empty sets, at least in my opinion.

You make the same mistake here... 3 void rooms of students isn't equal to one void room of students, because there are a different number of rooms. You just dressed it up in different terminology, but students and rooms can be exchanged freely with elements and sets and the example is the same
 
This is the questions, terminology but also concepts and physical realities.
Currently we use some disconnection among mathematics of set and pure mathematics.
For example:
--If we divide 36 students among 3 empty rooms, pure mathematics says 36/3=12 and stop here.
--But the reality (in mathematics of set) says: a set A (36 students) is divided by a set B (3 empty rooms) and give us three occupied rooms with 12 students each ones in the following way:
A (36 student) / B (3 empty rooms) = C (room, 12 students), D (room, 12 students) and E (room, 12 students).
This last solution (in set) shows us the total result and not a partial result as in pure mathematics (12).
So, in this example we can see as in set mathematics we can observe more complete results y more exposition of the physical reality.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
15K
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K