0
For much the same reason that zero is a number. It allows mathematical theories to be developed using the same terminology for a range of possibilities rather than use different explanations/names in all sorts of "special cases".
For example, the intersection of two sets is the set of all elements which belong to both sets. If there is no overlap, the intersection is simply the null set. Once you accept that it is easier to develop the relationships between the sets, their unions, complements and so on without having to make a separate statement each time you come across a null set.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Does the set of all sets other than the empty set include the empty set?
The collection of all sets minus the empty set is not a set (it is too big to be a set) but instead a proper class. See Russell's paradox for why it would be problematic to consider this a set. According to axioms of standard ZFC set theory, not every intuitive "collection" of sets is a set; we must proceed carefully when reasoning about what is a set according to ZFC.
Is a empty set a proper subset explain with reason?
An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.
What is the definition to set in math terms?
A set is a collection of objects.Mathematically, you require a rule that allows you to decide whether any given object belongsto a set or not. A rule may result in a set containing no objects - the empty set. Different rules may result in the same set.A set is a collection of objects.Mathematically, you require a rule that allows you to decide whether any given object belongsto a set or not. A rule may result in a set containing no objects - the empty set. Different rules may result in the same set.A set is a collection of objects.Mathematically, you require a rule that allows you to decide whether any given object belongsto a set or not. A rule may result in a set containing no objects - the empty set. Different rules may result in the same set.A set is a collection of objects.Mathematically, you require a rule that allows you to decide whether any given object belongsto a set or not. A rule may result in a set containing no objects - the empty set. Different rules may result in the same set.
Example of set?
{3, -pi, Alpha, The Fifteenth Banana, Mr. President, empty set, 41, X, monkey, 35.47682}The idea here is that a set is a collection of anyobjects.
Is the set of the empty set a subset of a set that has listed the empty set and set of the empty set?
Yes. This, of course, is under only the assumption that the two relations of element and containment are well defined relations between any two objects that are presumed to exist. Such a question can not be postulated if the empty set is absent from existence, so it follows the existence of the empty set is presumed to exist. When considering which objects the question depicts , the representation "a set that has listed the empty set and the set of the empty set" for such an object obtains ambiguous interpretations. However, the proposition is true under each interpretation, because the containment of the set containing the empty set is in reference to the object "a set" that has the proposed characteristics. Because one of those characteristics is that within the expression of this set, the empty set is listed, inclusion of the empty set in any set that is found to have these characteristics results in a set that also meets all these characteristics. Hence, for every interpretation of the question above, it follows that the answer is yes. In the case that such ambiguity is accidental, or in the least unintentional to the problem, one may simply represent the sets that are depicted in the question using set notation: {0} {0,{0}} As one can see, the first set is a subset of the second set because there exists a collection of elements (in this case, the empty set 0) that are in the second set such that the set containing such a collection is identical to the first set. In other words, the first set is equivalent to the second set intersected with itself. So it is clear that the answer is yes.
What is a disjoint set?
ExplanationFormally, two sets A and B are disjoint if their intersection is the empty set, i.e. if This definition extends to any collection of sets. A collection of sets is pairwise disjoint or mutually disjoint if, given any two sets in the collection, those two sets are disjoint.Formally, let I be an index set, and for each i in I, let Ai be a set. Then the family of sets {Ai : i ∈ I} is pairwise disjoint if for any i and j in I with i ≠ j,For example, the collection of sets { {1}, {2}, {3}, ... } is pairwise disjoint. If {Ai} is a pairwise disjoint collection (containing at least two sets), then clearly its intersection is empty:However, the converse is not true: the intersection of the collection {{1, 2}, {2, 3}, {3, 1}} is empty, but the collection is not pairwise disjoint. In fact, there are no two disjoint sets in this collection.A partition of a set X is any collection of non-empty subsets {Ai : i ∈ I} of X such that {Ai} are pairwise disjoint andSets that are not the same.
Is an empty set a subset of itself?
Yes it is. Everything in the empty set (which is nothing of course) is also in the empty set. If it's not in the empty set, it's not in the empty set. The empty set has no propersubsets, though, or subsets that are different from it.
Is an empty set a subset of every set?
Yes,an empty set is the subset of every set. The subset of an empty set is only an empty set itself.
What is the meaning of empty set?
The empty set is the set that contains no elements. (It is the empty set, not an empty set, because there is only one of them. It is a unique mathematical object.)
What is a difference between a collection and a set?
None. A set is a collection and a collection is a set.
What is empty set?
difinition of empty set
What isan empty set?
The empty set is a set that has no elements.
