I'm not so bad in math however I want to understand math the way mathematicians do, so I picked up this book How to Think Like a Mathematician. The book seems the book that I'm looking for. Definitely, it gonna be very long dark tunnel to me until I see the light. Any ways, he started with sets and I came across the following

1- For any set $X$, we have $X \subseteq X$.

2- For any set $X$, we have $\emptyset \subseteq X$.

I couldn't imagine what do the two aforementioned statements imply. For the first one, how come a set is part of or equal itself? I can imagine the equality here but not the partition. The second statement, how come a non-empty set has an empty set? For example, let $ X = \{1, 2, 3\}$, now why $\emptyset \subseteq X$?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you already understand why $X\subseteq X$ (because the little underline means that it is possible that $X=X$), then the other question has been thoroughly chewed all across the site. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jun 7 '14 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, some authors skip the underline and write $X \subset X$ to mean "X is a subset of (possibly equal to) X," and would write $\{1\} \subsetneq \{1, 2\}$ to mean that the first set is a proper subset of (not equal to) the second. $\endgroup$
    – user88319
    Jun 8 '14 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila, no I'm not understanding $ X \subset X$ however $X = X$ makes sense. $\endgroup$
    – CroCo
    Jun 8 '14 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ I didn't use $X\subset X$ on purpose there. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    Jun 8 '14 at 6:42

A very good principle when starting out in any new area of maths: get really, really clear about key definitions. Don't just make a stab at guessing (or go by the perhaps misleading everyday terminology used in labelling, or by an informal gloss on the definition): look carefully at how key notions are rigorously defined.

Now, what does $X \subseteq Y$ mean, officially?

$X \subseteq Y$ holds, by definition, if and only if, for any $x$, if $x \in X$ then $x \in Y$.

Informally, yes, you might be tempted to gloss $X \subseteq Y$ as e.g. "$X$ is a part of $Y$"; that can be useful, but as you are finding, it can also be misleading. So forget for a moment the rough informal gloss and concentrate on the official definition.

Applied to your two cases, we have first, by definition

$X \subseteq X$ if and only if, for any $x$, if $x \in X$ then $x \in X$.

Well now ask: Is it the case that for any $x$, if $x \in X$ then $x \in X$? And so what does that tell you about $X \subseteq X$?

Second, we have by definition

$\emptyset \subseteq X$ if and only if, for any $x$, if $x \in \emptyset$ then $x \in X$.

Well now ask: Is it the case that for any $x$, if $x \in \emptyset$ then $x \in X$? Recall that $x \in \emptyset$ is always false: what happens to quantified conditionals where the antecedent is always false? And so what does that tell you about $\emptyset \subseteq X$?

  • $\begingroup$ I found it hard to understand the explanation of the second one. Can you explain it any more clearly? $\endgroup$
    – Ufomammut
    Jun 7 '14 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @AaKASH: Recall that $\emptyset$ is empty (has no elements). So $x\in\emptyset$ is always false... there is nothing in $\emptyset$ so surely $x$ is not in there! Now any implication like "if A then B" in which A is false is always true. So if I say "If $x\in\emptyset$, then I have cats for ears," that implication is (vacuously) true because my hypothesis is false. $\endgroup$
    – user59083
    Jun 7 '14 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ In other words: I promise You, IF you give me x from empty set, I will give you a million! Did I lie? $\endgroup$
    – kakaz
    May 9 '19 at 19:10

Both questions really boil down to how mathematicians use logic.

1.) $X \subseteq X$ means that for all elements of $X$ they are elements of $X$.

2.) $\emptyset \subseteq X$ means that for all elements of $\emptyset$ they are elements of $X$.

To see why 1.) is true, consider an element $x$ in the set $X$, well then we know that $x$ is in $X$ (!) and so we have shown that all elements from $X$ are also elements of $X$.

To see why 2.) is true, we must show that given an element of $\emptyset$ it must belong to $X$. But, there are no elements of $\emptyset$ and so the implication is (trivially) satisfied. If you've studied truth tables then this corresponds to the case for "$P \Rightarrow Q$" where "P" is false.

  • $\begingroup$ you confused me more. For 1.), you are saying "for all elements of $X$ they are elements of $X$." Is there any doubt about it? Why this unintuitive way to explain this stuff. $\endgroup$
    – CroCo
    Jun 7 '14 at 7:25
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Of course there's no doubt about it; that's why $X\subseteq X$ :p The symbol "$\subseteq$" has been defined so that it makes sense to ask for any $Y$ whether $Y\subseteq X$. Hence we can ask about $X$ itself; the answer turns out to be pretty trivial, but sometimes trivial truths are good to know. $\endgroup$ Jun 7 '14 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ @MaliceVidrine, this $Y \subseteq X$ makes perfect sense to me. Also, $ X = X $; Because $ \subseteq $ implies $ X \subset X$, this is where I got confused. How come a set becomes a part of itself? $\endgroup$
    – CroCo
    Jun 8 '14 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ The definition of $\subseteq$ has been explained. $X\subseteq X$ because of the very meaning of $\subseteq$--it's a logical truth that $X$ contains all the things that $X$ contains. $\endgroup$ Jun 8 '14 at 1:54
  • $\begingroup$ @CroCo:$Y\subseteq X$ does not imply $Y\subset X.$ The notation $Y\subseteq X$ means $Y\subset X$ or $Y=X.$ In general $P$ or $Q$ does not imply $P$. All it means is that at least one of the statements $P$ or $Q$ is true. They do not both need to be true. Applying that to this situation, you cannot use $Y\subseteq X$ to conclude that $Y\subset X.$ In particular, you cannot use $X\subseteq X$ to conclude that $X\subset X.$ $\endgroup$ Jun 8 '14 at 2:51

$X$: "Hello set $Y$, is it so that any element of you is also an element of me?"

$Y$: "Yes."

$X$: "Well let us practicize a notation that expresses this fact: $Y\subseteq X$."

If $X$ would have asked the same question to himself then the answer would have been 'yes' too, right? So in the suggested notation: $X\subseteq X$.

Concerning 2):

$X$: "Hello set $\emptyset$, is it so that any element of you is also an element of me?"

$\emptyset$: "Well, I have no elements that are not. Even stronger, I have no elements at all. So again the answer is yes"

$X$: "Well let us practicize a notation that expresses this fact: $\emptyset\subseteq X$."

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Awesome dialogue! $\endgroup$
    – user59083
    Jun 7 '14 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ @drhab, again with the voodoo. why is $X \subset X$ true? I'm not finding a good answer for this question. $\endgroup$
    – CroCo
    Jun 8 '14 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ Read carefully; it's $X \subseteq X$, not $X \subset X$. $\endgroup$
    – moshbear
    Jun 8 '14 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ If it is - in spite of all the answers on this question - not yet clear to you that $X\subseteq X$ then I cannot be of help anymore. The notation $A\subset B$ is quite often used to express that $A$ is a proper subset of $B$, wich means that $A\subseteq B$ and $A\neq B$. That means that $X\subset X$ is simply not true. But as I said: quite often, but not always. There are lots of authors using notation $\subset$ instead of $\subseteq$ and using notation $\subsetneq$ instead of $\subset$. In every book/script you should check on what side the author is on. $\endgroup$
    – drhab
    Jun 8 '14 at 14:35

$(1)$ Lets consider something that may seem more familiar. The symbol "$\le$" means less than on or equal to, so if we see $a\le b$, one of the following criteria hold:

$(i)\,a\lt b$ ($a$ is strictly less than $b$), or

$(ii)\, a=b$.

Now it is clear that $a\le a$ because $(ii)$ holds.

Now we will work with subsets, $Y\subseteq X$ if:

$(i)$ every element of $Y$ is an element of $X$ (but $Y\ne X$), or

$(ii)$ $Y=X$

Now it is clear that $X\subseteq X$, because $(ii)$ holds.

$(2)$ the empty set $\varnothing$ is the set consisting of no elements. It is true that for any set $X$ we have $\varnothing\subseteq X$. So let us look at this constructively, as this a good way to see how things work.

How would one create a subset of $X$? One way would be to just remove elements of $X$, then what is left over would satisfy $(i)$, and thus be a subset.

Now remove all the elements of $X$ from $X$, what are you left with? A set consisting of nothing, I.e the eempty set, but still $(i)$ holds, so we see that $\varnothing\subseteq X$


The relation $\subseteq$ is just like the relation $\le$. It is not wrong to say that $x \le x$, i.e., "$x$ is less than or equal to $x$", although it's also true that $x = x$. The first is a weaker statement than the second, in that it conveys less information. But it's certainly not false in any way. Look at it another way: $\le$ [is less than or equal to] means the same thing as $\not >$ [is not greater than]. Is it true that $x$ is not greater than $x$? Yes. Then it is true that $x$ is less than or equal to $x$.

Similarly, $\subseteq$ [is a subset of] is equivalent to saying "does not contain elements not in". For example, $X \subseteq Y$ means "$X$ does contain any element that is not in $Y$". Is it true that $X$ does not contain any element not in $X$? Yes, it is always true. So $X \subseteq X$.

Now, let's apply this definition to the statement $\phi \subseteq X$. We know that $\phi = \{\}$, and let $X = \{1, 2, 3\}$, as in your example. Now, is it true that $\phi$ does not contain any element not in $X$? Yes! So $\phi \subseteq X$.

In more formal notation:

  1. $X \subseteq Y \Leftrightarrow (\forall x \in X, x \in Y) \Leftrightarrow (\not\exists x \in X, x \notin Y)$
  2. $(\forall x \in X, x \in X) \Rightarrow X \subseteq X$
  3. $\not\exists x \in \phi \Rightarrow (\not\exists x \in \phi, x \notin X) \Rightarrow \phi \subseteq X$
  • $\begingroup$ why it is not wrong to say $x < x$? Let x = 4, saying 4 < 4 makes no sense at all. $\endgroup$
    – CroCo
    Jun 8 '14 at 1:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You seem to be rather confused. $4 \leq 4$ does not imply $4<4$. Obviously $3\leq 4$, but this doesn't imply $3=4$; you're making a similar mistake. $\endgroup$ Jun 8 '14 at 2:46

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.