0
$\begingroup$

Followup to the accepted answer of this question Direct proof of empty set being subset of every set

I understood the answer based on the nature of vacous truth, however what if we verify a statement $ \forall A \forall x, x\in \emptyset $ it holds that $x \notin A$ then this statement also becomes vacously true. Now this means $x \notin A$ is true as well.

Am I missing something, could you please explain?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If you mean that every member of the empty set is not a member of $A$, then yes, you are correct. This statement is vacuously true.

There are no members to the empty set.

The point is that the definition of $X\subseteq Y$ is universal, i.e. given by $\forall x$, whereas the definition of $X\nsubseteq Y$ is existential, i.e. given by $\exists x$. So in order to prove that $\varnothing\nsubseteq A$, one needs not to verify that $\forall x\in\varnothing:x\notin A$, but rather than $\exists x\in\varnothing: x\notin A$, and the latter is indeed false.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If I've understood correctly, you are concerned about the statement $$\forall A, \forall x \in \varnothing : x \notin A.$$

Indeed, since $\forall x \in \varnothing$ is a statement about nothing, the statement is vacuously true. However, it does not mean that $\forall x : x \notin A$. In fact, the statement says pretty much nothing about $A$. To see why, we can write the statement above without syntactic sugar; it then becomes $$\forall A, \forall x : x \in \varnothing \Rightarrow x \notin A.$$

Since the premise $x \in \varnothing$ is always false, the implication is always true, and so the entire quantified statement is true. Note how the truth of this statement says nothing definite about $A$.

Let me know if I've misunderstood your question.

$\endgroup$

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.