Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I proof that, let $A$ a set and $A \neq \emptyset$, then $A \nsubseteq \emptyset$;

Proof by contradiction: if $A \subseteq \emptyset$ then by property I have an absurd , in fact by hypothesis $A \neq \emptyset$, therefore $A \nsubseteq \emptyset$.

Or, direct proof: by hypothesis $A \neq \emptyset$, then "$A \nsubseteq \emptyset$ or $ \emptyset \nsubseteq A$", but by property I have only case that $ A \nsubseteq \emptyset$... Is it correct? Thank you all in advance

share|cite|improve this question
Why if $A\neq\varnothing$ then $A\nsubseteq \varnothing$ or $\varnothing \nsubseteq A$? I think it requires proof, because $\subseteq$ is not total order. (on set of subsets of $X$. $X$ is arbitary set.) – Hanul Jeon Mar 16 '13 at 12:04
Hi @tetori, Ok! Therefore I must prove that $A \nsubseteq \emptyset$, ok? I prove it by contraddiction, so $A \subseteq \emptyset$ then $A = \emptyset$ but by hypothesis $A \neq \emptyset$ and it is contraddiction therefore $A \nsubseteq \emptyset$ Is it correct? – mle Mar 16 '13 at 12:19
I think it is correct :) – Hanul Jeon Mar 16 '13 at 12:38
Hi @tetori... thank you soo much!!! – mle Mar 16 '13 at 12:48
up vote 10 down vote accepted

In Dijkstra-Feijen style, it is easy to rigorously prove that the two are even equivalent: for any set $A$,

$$ \begin{array}{ll} & A ≠ ∅ \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\text{"expand $≠$ to introduce equality"} \\ & \lnot (A = ∅) \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\text{"introduce double inclusion -- suggested by shape of the desired conclusion"} \\ & \lnot (A ⊆ ∅ \land ∅ ⊆ A) \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\text{"$∅ ⊆ A$ is always true"} \\ & \lnot (A ⊆ ∅) \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\text{"simplify"} \\ & A ⊈ ∅ \\ \end{array} $$

share|cite|improve this answer
Wow.. this proof is interesting.. – mle Mar 16 '13 at 20:19

Or more positively, if $A\neq\emptyset$ then there exists some $x$ with $x\in A$, and since $x\notin\emptyset$ it follows that $A\not\subseteq\emptyset$.

share|cite|improve this answer

There is a language issue so I can't quite tell if what you are suggesting is correct or not. In any case, it is not rigorously presented, so I provide you here with a rigorous proof.

Suppose that $A\subseteq \emptyset $. Then, by definition of inclusion, for all $a\in A$ holds that $a\in \emptyset $. However, $a\in \emptyset$ never holds, and thus $a\in A$ never holds, so that $A=\emptyset $. By contrapositive it follows that if $A\ne \emptyset$ then $A$ is not contained in $\emptyset $.

share|cite|improve this answer
Hi @Ittay Weiss I corrected my precedent post.... now How is it correct? – mle Mar 16 '13 at 11:01

Your Answer


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.