0
$\begingroup$

According to the definition of empty set that is the set containing no elements, commonly denoted emptyset or emptyset , Really i'm confused the empty set is nothing and hasn't any element and it is used widely in mathematics especially topology and algebra group , Now my question here is :

Question: let $A$ be a set of elements and ${\emptyset}‎$ is empty set , Why : ‎ ‎$\{A,\emptyset\}\ and \{A\}$ haven't the same meaning ?

Not: if they have the same meaning then why should be cite the empty set as a condition in the definition of topological space .

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The fist of those two sets has two elements, the second one has one element. They "don't have the same meaning". $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Feb 11 '17 at 19:06
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Typically I'm against using real world examples to explain mathematics, specially something like set theory. But here it is anyway. Suppose you have two boxes, box $A$ has some stuff, box $\varnothing$ is empty. Is holding both boxes the same as holding just box $A$? $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Feb 11 '17 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ What you have si a set: $\{A,\emptyset\}$, the set that contains two sets, $A$ and $\emptyset$ not $\{A \cup \emptyset\}$ $\endgroup$ – Bernard Massé Feb 11 '17 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud, your example convinced me , i taught Empty set that is nothing as the meaning of 0 as a number $\endgroup$ – zeraoulia rafik Feb 11 '17 at 19:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "i'm confused the empty set is nothing" The empty set is not nothing. The empty set is a set that has nothing in it. A notebook with nothing written in it is not nothing, it is a notebook. A drawer with a can opener in it is not a can opener. It has a can opener in it but it is not a can opener itself. A set is not the same thing as the things inside it. An empty set is a thing-- a thing that has nothing in it. So {A, $\emptyset$} is a set with two things in it. One thing is A. The other is the emptyset. {A} is a set with one thing in it. The thing is A. The empty set is not in it. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Feb 11 '17 at 19:19
6
$\begingroup$

No, they have not: the set $\{A,\varnothing\}$ has two elements unless $A=\varnothing$, whereas the sets $\{A\}$ and $\{\varnothing\}$ have one.

In particular, if $A=\{\varnothing\}$, the set $\;\{\{\varnothing\},\varnothing\}$ has two elements – this is even von Neumann's definition of the number $2$.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

If $A$ is not the empty set, then the meaning is different because $\varnothing\in\{A,\varnothing\}$ is true and $\varnothing \in \{A\}$ is false. Sets are by definition different when there's something that is an element of one but not of the other.

If $A$ is the empty set, then $\{A,\varnothing\}$ and $\{A\}$ are the same; they are then just different ways to write the set also known as $\{\varnothing\}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ well , pleas read the not that i wrote below of the question , then if they are both the same why should cite empty set in the definition of topological space since it's trivial satisfied ? $\endgroup$ – zeraoulia rafik Feb 11 '17 at 19:09
  • $\begingroup$ @zeraouliarafik: I do not understand what you're trying to ask there. $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Feb 11 '17 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ In my mind every non -empty set contain empty set $\endgroup$ – zeraoulia rafik Feb 11 '17 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ @zeraouliarafik: The answer says they are not the same. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Feb 11 '17 at 19:12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @zeraouliarafik: Every set has the empty set as a subset. Most sets that you meet in practice do not have the empty set as an element. Being an element is something completely different from being a subset. It is regrettable and confusing that the word "contains" is being used for both of these; it is best to avoid the word "contains" completely until you are completely sure how sets work. $\endgroup$ – Henning Makholm Feb 11 '17 at 19:14
4
$\begingroup$

$\{ A , \emptyset \}$ does not mean $A \cup \emptyset$.

$\{ A , \emptyset \}$ is the set containing the two elements $a,b$, namely $a = A$ and $b = \emptyset$.

$\{A\}$ does not mean $A$, it means the set containing $A$ as an element.

It could also happen that $A =\emptyset$, in which case $\{A, \emptyset\} = \{A\} = \{\emptyset\}$, and the two sets have the same meaning.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Babar, Haitha, Tantor and Pink Honk-Honk are four elephants.

A = $\{$Babar, Haitha, Tantor, Pink Honk-honk$\}$.

A is one thing. It is a set that contains four elephants. But A is not an elephant. A is not even four elephants really. It is a collection of four elephants.

A has four things in it. But A, itself, is one thing.

B = {A}={{Babar, Haitha, Tantor, Pink Honk-honk}} has one thing in it. It has a set in it. It does not have four elephants in it. It is a set with only one thing in it. That thing is a set. (B has something inside it that has four elephants but B, itself, does not have any elephants directly inside it.)

{A} $\ne $ A.

$\emptyset = \{\}$ is set with nothing in it. It is something. It is a set. It is a set with nothing in it.

{A} is a set with one thing in it. {A, $\emptyset$} is a set with with two things in it.

{A} $\ne $ {A, $\emptyset$} because the two sets have different things inside them.

===

Note: $A \cup \emptyset = A$ but $\{A, B\} \ne \{A \cup B\}$ so $\{A\} = \{A \cup \emptyset\} \ne \{A, \emptyset\}$.

$\{A,B\}$ is a set with two things in it. Those two things are two sets. $A \cup B$ is one set; a combined set-- all the elements of A and B are dumped out, mixed together and packed up into a new set. So $\{A\cup B\}$ is a set with only one thing int it. That one thing is one set. So $\{A,B\} \ne \{A \cup B\}$.

$\endgroup$

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.