Which notation ($\subset$ or $\subseteq$) was preferred by Bourbaki for set inclusion (not proper)?

A side question: Was the notation for subset one of the many notations invented by Bourbaki?

  • $\begingroup$ And why exactly did someone vote to close this question? $\endgroup$ – Gaussler Apr 27 '15 at 8:56
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Someone thinks this is primarily opinion based; which I do not agree, as I think the answer is "well-defined." $\endgroup$ – awllower Apr 27 '15 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, indeed, I'd say there is a definite, opinion-free answer to this. Whether it should have been on this SE or "History of Science and Mathematics" is another matter. $\endgroup$ – Gaussler Apr 27 '15 at 8:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Someone possibly overread "Bourbaki" or didn't care. I've added the math-history tag to convey the intention in the tags as well. I suggest clarifying or removing the second question, though. That one is opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Apr 27 '15 at 8:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Those votes to close make absolutely no sense. If someone thinks this is a bad question, they should simply downvote. $\endgroup$ – goblin Apr 28 '15 at 10:16

See :

Définition 1 (L'inclusion). La relation désignée par $(\forall z)((z \in x) \implies (z \in y))$ dans laquelle ne figurent que les lettres $x$ et $y$, se note de l'une quelconque des manières suivantes : $x \subset y, y \supset x$, « $x$ est contenu dans $y$ », « $y$ contient $x$ », « $x$ est un sous-ensemble de $y$ ».

See English translation :

Regarding origins :

According to Florian Cajori (A History of Mathematical Notations (1928), vol. 2, page 294), the symbols for "is included in" (untergeordnet) and for "includes" (übergeordnet) were introduced by Ernst Schröder : Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik. vol. 1 (1890).

In addition, Schröder uses $=$ superposed to $\subset$ for untergeordnet oder gleich, i.e. $\subseteq$; see Vorlesungen.

Giuseppe Peano, in Arithmetices Principia Novo Methodo Exposita (1889), page xi, uses an "inverted C" for inclusion :

Signum $\text {"inverted C"}$ significat continetur. Ita $a \ \text {"inverted C"} \ b$ significat classis $a$ continetur in classis $b$ [i.e. : $\forall x(x \in a \to x \in b)$].

Note. It is worth noticing that in Peano there is the distinction between the relation : "to be an element of" ($\in$) and the relaion : "to be included into" ($\subset$).

This distinction is not present in Schröder.

According to Bernard Linsky, Russell’s Notes on Frege’s Grundgesetze Der Arithmetik from §53, in Russell, 26 (2006), page 127–66 :

Gregory Moore reports that Russell used $\supset$ for class inclusion as well as implication until March or April 1902, when he started to use $\subset$ for class inclusion.

  • $\begingroup$ And did Schröder write $\subset$ or $\subseteq$ for non-proper inclusion? $\endgroup$ – Gaussler Apr 27 '15 at 10:51

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.