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.

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 have a homework assignment where, given some definitions, I need to prove that every set has a partition. There were some very elaborate ideas on how to prove this, but I realized that the definitions we were given allow a set to be a partition of itself. And if that is the case, then there clearly exists a partition of every set.

I'm not sure if I'm taking advantage of the simplicity of the definitions we are given. I tried to search if a set is a partition of itself, and not much if anything came up. The claim "every set is a partition of itself" seems to violate our english definition of partition, but be consistent with the mathematical definitions I have found.

For the sake of this discussion, I would think it be best to only consider non-empty sets because there seems to be some variety in how partitions are defined that prohibit the empty set from having partitions.

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, you´re right , but for the empty set itself you will have just the empty set. – user40276 Apr 7 '14 at 19:56

No, a set is not a partition of itself. But rather the singleton $\{X\}$ is a partition of $X$ whenever $X$ is non-empty.

In the other end of the spectrum, $\{\{x\}\mid x\in X\}$ is a partition of $X$, again when $X$ is non-empty. And if $X$ has at least two elements, then the two suggestions are indeed distinct.

Your reasoning for excluding the empty set is correct.

share|cite|improve this answer
Actually I'd say that the empty set is a partition of itself: $\varnothing$ is a collection of disjoint nonempty sets whose union is $\varnothing$. – Henning Makholm Apr 7 '14 at 20:30
The reason I did not include the empty set is because some definitions state that the disjoint sets be non-empty. The definition given to me in my class did not have this constraint, and our Professor stated that by our definition, the empty set does have a partition for the exact reason you stated. – Reck Apr 7 '14 at 20:41
@Henning: That may depend on the definitions. When I'm teaching this topic, we always require that the set partitioned is non-empty. I don't find it satisfying to think of the empty set as a partition of itself very much; even if formally you might be correct. – Asaf Karagila Apr 7 '14 at 20:42
@Reck: As Henning points out, one can use the empty set as a partition of itself. But I find it philosophically unsatisfying. If you definitions permit this, then you're about done (and you can note that the singletons partition gives $\varnothing$ when $X=\varnothing$). – Asaf Karagila Apr 7 '14 at 20:44
@AsafKaragila I agree with your view. My class is introductory, which is why the definitions are a bit less strict, but the definitions I've seen support your stance. – Reck Apr 7 '14 at 20:58

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.