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.

If we have a function $f:A \rightarrow B$, then one way to give meaning, I think, to this function, in terms of set theory, is to say, that $f$ is actually a binary relation $f=(A,B,G_f)$, where $G_f \subseteq A \times B$ is the graph of the function. Now my question is: what is $f$ if

$\bullet \ A=\emptyset, \ B\neq\emptyset$,?

$ \bullet \ B=\emptyset, \ A\neq\emptyset$ ?

$ \bullet \ B=\emptyset, \ A=\emptyset$ ?

(Another way to formulate this, I think, would be: How do the sets $\emptyset\times B,\ A\ \times \emptyset, \ \emptyset \times \emptyset $ look like ? Are they all $\emptyset$ ?)

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Yes, they're all empty sets. For example, $\emptyset \times A$ consists of all pairs of the form $(o,a)$ with $o \in \emptyset, a \in A$. But the empty set has no elements, hence $\emptyset \times A$ has no elements, hence $\emptyset \times A$ is the empty set. A similar argument works for the other two sets.

Here is how this problem can be interpreted in terms of cardinalities. For any sets $A,B$ the cardinality of $A \times B$ is the product of cardinalities of $A$ and $B$. Hence the cardinality of $\emptyset \times A$ is just $0 \cdot |A| = 0$ so $\emptyset \times A$ has $0$ elements, and hence $\emptyset \times A = \emptyset$. And a similar argument will work in the other two cases.

share|improve this answer
    
Although I understand well what you mean, isn't writing $o\in \emptyset$ a bit weird, since the emptyset should not contain any other set ? –  temo Jul 14 '11 at 9:07
    
Yes, you are correct. I just used the definition of Cartesian product to write down how an element of $\emptyset \times A$ "looks like". And since $\emptyset$ has no elements, the condition $o \in \emptyset$ is never satisfied, hence $\emptyset \times A$ is empty. Basically, I was trying to say "the empty set has no elements, hence $\emptyset \times A$ has no elements" rigorously. –  algebra_fan Jul 14 '11 at 9:15
    
The first answer is spot on, but I don't see a way of formalizing the second that doesn't pass through the first, especially if $B$ is infinite (but even if $B$ is finite, there's something to show). –  user83827 Jul 14 '11 at 10:01
    
Well, I am using the arithmetic of cardinal numbers; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number#Cardinal_multiplication. So if you are familiar with this, then you can just use the definition of cardinal multiplication in this problem. But I agree that it's certainly overkill to use this machinery of cardinal numbers to answer this question. –  algebra_fan Jul 14 '11 at 10:18
    
It's not that I think it's overkill. I think it's begging the question argue that $\emptyset \times B$ is empty since $0 \times \kappa = 0$ for all $\kappa$. Like I said, I think the first answer is spot on, and I'm sorry if this seems pedantic, but I think it's misleading to suggest that changing the language of the question to an equivalent statement in cardinal arithmetic (and implicitly appealing to an unjustified "$0$ times anything is $0$" intuition) is a suitable replacement for the actual argument. –  user83827 Jul 14 '11 at 10:37

A slightly more formal rephrase of the other answer is to calculate which elements are in $A \times \emptyset$: for any $p$, \begin{align} & p \in A \times \emptyset \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"definition of $\times$ on sets"} \\ & \textrm{isPair}(p) \;\land\; \textrm{fst}(p) \in A \;\land\; \textrm{snd}(p) \in \emptyset \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"$x \in \emptyset \equiv \textrm{false}$ for any $x$; simplify"} \\ & \textrm{false} \\ \equiv & \;\;\;\;\;\text{"$x \in \emptyset \equiv \textrm{false}$ for any $x$"} \\ & p \in \emptyset \\ \end{align} and therefore, by set extensionality, $A \times \emptyset = \emptyset$. A very similar proof of course goes for $\emptyset \times B = \emptyset$, and obviously either of these implies $\emptyset \times \emptyset = \emptyset$.

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.