# Is $1$ a subset of $\{1\}$

Is the number $1$ a subset of the set $\{1\}$ just as $\{1\}$ is a subset of the set $\{\{1\}\}$? I'm a little bit confused because $1$ is an element not a set...

-
$\{1\}$ is also an element of $\{\{1\}\}$, not a subset. Suppose you have $A = \{1,2,3\}$, we say $2$ is an element of $A$ (and we write $2 \in A$), but we say $\{2\}$ is a subset of $A$ (and we write $\{2\} \subseteq A$), because every element of $\{2\}$ is in $A$. – Miguelgondu Sep 2 '14 at 20:43
{1} isn't a subset of {{1}}, unless you are working in an ill-founded set theory and have defined 1 in a way such that 1 = {1}. – Hurkyl Sep 2 '14 at 22:16
see here, and here, and here. – user 1 Dec 31 '15 at 15:25

## 7 Answers

$1$ is an element of $\{1\}$, $\{1\}$ is a subset of $\{1\}$, $\{1\}$ is an element of $\{\{1\}\}$ and $\{\{1\}\}$ is a subset of $\{\{1\}\}$.

-
No flaws in your logic, but that doesn't really answer the question... – Dennis Sep 2 '14 at 23:14
@Dennis: great !! Therefore propose a real answer ! – idm Sep 2 '14 at 23:22
I didn't mean this is a bad way. It's just not immediately obvious why the fact that $1$ is an element of $\{1\}$ would imply that it cannot be a subset. – Dennis Sep 2 '14 at 23:28
My last comment was absolutely not a reproach. I just incited you to make an answer that would be more helpful for the OP :-) – idm Sep 2 '14 at 23:30
@idm Is {1} a subset of {{1}}? – A user Sep 8 '14 at 23:08

$1$ is generally not a subset of $\{1\}$, since $1$ is a natural number (or a real number, or whatever) and not a set. These objects are of two different types.

But there is something to be said here. We can represent numbers using sets. We can declare that $0$ is $\varnothing$, and that $1=\{0\}$ or $\{\varnothing\}$, and that $2=\{0,1\}$ and so on. Then a number is a set.

Still that doesn't mean that $1\subseteq\{1\}$. This would very much depend on the representation of $1$ as a set.

So while "working mathematics" is typed (meaning the type of objects matters), we can also work in an untyped environment, where everything has the same type (for example, everything is a set).

-
It looks very unusual how a set could actually be named by a single number that way, so I'd like to see some sources showing someone actually using such notation. – user26486 Sep 2 '14 at 22:51
@mathh: That's the usual way of defining natural number in axiomatic set theory, since the resulting set is the one provided by the Axiom of Infinity. See Set-theoretic definition of natural numbers – Dennis Sep 2 '14 at 23:05
Using this representation of numbers, we would, however, have $1\subset 2$. Weird, but true. – Dan Christensen Sep 3 '14 at 18:15
Seeing how several people gave similar answers, the downvote feels kinda personal. – Asaf Karagila Nov 4 '14 at 3:47

$1 \in \{1\}$

$\{1\} \subseteq \{1\}$

As you said, 1 is an element of $\{1\}$, not a set.

-

As @AsafKaragila already said, you can define natural numbers as sets. In fact, in most axiomatic set theories, that's the only way of defining numbers, since every element of a set is a set.

As for your specific question, suppose that $1\subset\{1\}$. This leaves us with two options:

1. $1=\emptyset$ and the inclusion trivially holds.

2. $1\neq\emptyset$. Since $\{1\}$ has only two subsets, $1=\{1\}$.

Option 1 is possible, since identifying $1$ with the empty set is perfectly valid, but it's much more natural to identify $0$ with the empty set.

Option 2 just "looks wrong", but in elementary set theory, we can't really make any statements beyond that. In any axiomatic set theory that includes the Axiom of Regularity, $1=\{1\}$ is false since $x\notin x$ for every set $x$.

-

On both the cases, 1 is element of {1} & {1} is element of {{1}}. i.e. 1 ∈{1} & {1}∈{{1}}

And, in case of subset, {1} is subset of {1}. i.e. {1}⊆{1}

-

No. Every natural number is constructed based on set theory. Because of that every natural number is a set. To be more general, because we build up the whole mathematics from set theory, we can say that in mathematics everything is a set. The construcion is the following.

• $0 = \emptyset$
• $1 = \{ 0 \} = \{ \emptyset \}$
• $2 = \{0, 1 \} = \{ 0, \{0\} \} = \{ \emptyset, \{ \emptyset \} \}$
• and so on.

Since $1 = \{ 0 \} = \{ \emptyset \}$ and $\{1\} = \{ \{ 0 \} \} = \{ \{ \emptyset \} \}$ and the subsets of $\{ 1 \}$ are $\wp\left( \{ 1 \}\right) = \wp\left(\{ \{ \emptyset \} \}\right)=\{\emptyset,\{ \{ \emptyset \} \}\}$ we can say that $\{ \emptyset \} \notin \wp\left(\{1\}\right)$ so $\{ \emptyset \} \not\subseteq \{ \{ \emptyset \} \}$ and that is why $1 \not\subseteq \{1\}$.

On the other hand, because we have an axiom of extensionality and since we have element predicate, the fact that $\{ 1 \}$ contains $1$ exactly means that $1 \in \{1\}$.

-

It is ambiguous but not uncommon to see a set with a single member referred to as simply that member, in contexts where the author would expect the reader to understand that only sets are under discussion.

-
An unfortunate abuse of notation. I tried to have my alg. top. professor to stop doing it, but it didn't work. I kept having this twitch whenever it happened... :P – Asaf Karagila Sep 3 '14 at 3:58
I know that feeling. There are a couple of things that "working mathematicians" sometimes do that give set theorists the creeps... :) – Frunobulax Sep 3 '14 at 6:28

## protected by Zev ChonolesDec 30 '15 at 18:36

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?