# Axiom of Infinity implies existence of empty set. Is this circular?

I am reading Jech's "Set Theory". First, he states that the existence of the empty set follows from the axiom of infinity. The empty set is defined, using the separation schema as $$\emptyset = \{ u \in X\mid u \neq u \},$$ which the presupposes the existence of some set X. The existence of some set X, in his argument, follows from the existence of an inductive set. Then, he uses the empty set to define an inductive set in the axiom of infinity: $$\exists S [ \emptyset \in S \wedge (\forall x \in S) [x \cup \{x\} \in S]].$$ This argument seems to be circular to me. Am I wrong?

$$\exists S(\exists u(\forall z(z\notin u)\land u\in S)\land\forall x(x\in S\rightarrow\exists v(v\in S\land\forall w(w\in v\leftrightarrow w\in x\lor w=x))))$$ No reference to the empty set there.
• Or you can slip in the empty set as $\{y\in S: y\neq y\}$ and all the required ontological content is still contained in the axiom. Feb 23, 2014 at 8:25