1
$\begingroup$

I want to prove that set $A$ is empty ($A = \varnothing$).

Intuitively, I understand that a way to do it would to be to falsely assume $ x \in A$ and show a contradiction (because if it's empty, $x \notin A$).
But I don't understand how that works mathematically.

Mathematically, I'm tripping because I need to prove is $A \subseteq \varnothing$, which would mean that $\forall x. \text{ if } x \in A \text{ then } x \in \varnothing$ (I'm aware that doesn't makes sense, but still required, which is why I'm confused).

According to this question, the contradiction really is enough, but why? how does that help you prove $A \subseteq \varnothing$, for you to be ultimately able to say $A=\varnothing$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The empty set is a set without any element in it. Hence the contradiction works if you follow this simple definition. $\endgroup$ – nb1 Nov 12 '14 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ What do you know about set $A$? $\endgroup$ – Thumbnail Nov 12 '14 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Thumbnail As a simple example: $\forall B. A = B \setminus B$. $\endgroup$ – MasterMastic Nov 12 '14 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ Your suggestion of proving $\forall x. x\in A \implies x \in\varnothing $ does make sense. $x\in\varnothing $ is always false, so this is the same as showing that an assumption of $x\in A $ leads to a contradiction. This answer discusses a similar situation. $\endgroup$ – MJD Nov 12 '14 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @MJD Oh exactly, that's why I'm confused. But to prove that $A = \varnothing$, don't I have to prove that? $\endgroup$ – MasterMastic Nov 12 '14 at 13:16
6
$\begingroup$

Because $x \in \varnothing$ is identically false, the only way $x \in A \implies x \in \varnothing$ can be true is if $x \in A$ is false.

Thus, the only way $\forall x: x \in A \implies x \in \varnothing$ can be true is if $x \in A$ is false for all $x$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

If you prove $\boldsymbol{A}\subseteq \boldsymbol{B}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}\subseteq \boldsymbol{A}$ then you know $\boldsymbol{A} = \boldsymbol{B}$.

Hint:

The $\varnothing \subseteq \boldsymbol{A}$ by definition of being the empty set.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ In the body of my question I'm describing that I'm having a hard time formally proving $\varnothing \subseteq A$. $\endgroup$ – MasterMastic Nov 12 '14 at 13:18
1
$\begingroup$

This is essentially a proof by contraction. In a proof by contradiction, you assume some assertion P is true, and then deduce a contradiction from it. You may then conclude P is false, as if it were true, a statement known to be false would be true.

To prove the set A is empty, begin by assuming A is non-empty. Using existential-instantiation, you may then define x to be an element of A (since you've assumed at least one exists). If you can then derive a contradiction from the assumption x is an element of A, the original supposition that A is non-empty must be wrong, and you may conclude A is empty.

"Mathematically, I'm tripping because I need to prove is A⊆∅, which would mean that ∀x. if x∈A then x∈∅" Another way to look at it is that since anything follows from a contradiction, if you can prove a contradiction follows from the assumption x∈A, then you can prove anything including x∈∅ follows from the assumption x∈A.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

$A=\{x\}$ but $A$ is a subset of and equal to empty set: empty set$=\{\}$ therefore, $A=$ empty set$=\{\}$ or $\{x\}$ but empty set is also a subset of $A$ therefore, probability of $A$ tending to null$=1$;also probability of $A$ tending to $\{x\}=1$ therefore, $A$ can be $= \{x\}$ $A$ can be$=\{\}$ therefore $A=\{\}$ because the possibility of $A$ tending to $\{\}$ is higher if and only if limits is involved.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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