Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I proof by contradiction that: let $ S $ a set, and $ S \subseteq \emptyset $, then $ S= \emptyset $; if $ S \neq \emptyset $ then $\exists x \in S ( x \notin \emptyset ) $ but by hypothesis this is contraddictory, in fact if $\exists x \in S ( x \notin \emptyset ) $ then $S \nsubseteq \emptyset $, therefore $S = \emptyset $. Is it correct? Thank you all in advance.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

You should write it more consistent, when $S\neq \varnothing$ then there are two cases. There is a $x$ that is in $S$ but not in $\varnothing$ or there is a $x$ that is $\varnothing$ but not in $S$. Or if you don't like words $$ S\neq \varnothing \iff ((\exists x \in S \wedge x\notin \varnothing)\vee (\exists x \in \varnothing\wedge x\notin S)) $$ As $x\in \varnothing$ is not true you only need to check $x\in S$ and $x\not \in \varnothing$. But than $S\not\subseteq \varnothing$.

share|improve this answer
    
of course!! I understand thank you!! –  mle Mar 14 '13 at 21:38

Suppose $S \subseteq \emptyset \rightarrow S= \emptyset$ is not correct. Then for some nonempty set $S$ we have $$S\subseteq \emptyset$$ Because $S$ is nonempty there's some $s\in S$. So $$s\in S\subseteq\emptyset$$ therefore $s\in \emptyset$. This is a contradiction.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.