My proof that the empty set is unique












0












$begingroup$


I'm trying to prove that the empty set is unique.



Proof:



Let $U = { a }$ be the universal set.



Assume $a notin emptyset '$ and $a notin emptyset$.



Without loss of generality, since $a notin emptyset'$, $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements. Since $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements, it must by default be a subset of $emptyset$, since the conditional statement



$$a in emptyset ' Rightarrow emptyset ' subseteq emptyset$$



is vacuously true.



Therefore, since $emptyset' subseteq emptyset$ and $emptyset subseteq emptyset '$, we have that $emptyset ' = emptyset$. $tag*{$blacksquare$}$



I would appreciate it if people could please provide feedback as to the correctness of my proof.



EDIT: Please be specific about what is incorrect and why. That way, I can learn what I did wrong and improve much more effectively.






proof-verification elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You should not need a universal set. Also, please be more careful with writing down the definition of what being empty means
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jan 6 at 17:22










  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen Are you saying that my proof is wrong, or that there are better ways to prove the theorem? Please be more specific about which part is incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25


















0












$begingroup$


I'm trying to prove that the empty set is unique.



Proof:



Let $U = { a }$ be the universal set.



Assume $a notin emptyset '$ and $a notin emptyset$.



Without loss of generality, since $a notin emptyset'$, $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements. Since $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements, it must by default be a subset of $emptyset$, since the conditional statement



$$a in emptyset ' Rightarrow emptyset ' subseteq emptyset$$



is vacuously true.



Therefore, since $emptyset' subseteq emptyset$ and $emptyset subseteq emptyset '$, we have that $emptyset ' = emptyset$. $tag*{$blacksquare$}$



I would appreciate it if people could please provide feedback as to the correctness of my proof.



EDIT: Please be specific about what is incorrect and why. That way, I can learn what I did wrong and improve much more effectively.






proof-verification elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You should not need a universal set. Also, please be more careful with writing down the definition of what being empty means
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jan 6 at 17:22










  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen Are you saying that my proof is wrong, or that there are better ways to prove the theorem? Please be more specific about which part is incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25
















0












0








0





$begingroup$


I'm trying to prove that the empty set is unique.



Proof:



Let $U = { a }$ be the universal set.



Assume $a notin emptyset '$ and $a notin emptyset$.



Without loss of generality, since $a notin emptyset'$, $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements. Since $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements, it must by default be a subset of $emptyset$, since the conditional statement



$$a in emptyset ' Rightarrow emptyset ' subseteq emptyset$$



is vacuously true.



Therefore, since $emptyset' subseteq emptyset$ and $emptyset subseteq emptyset '$, we have that $emptyset ' = emptyset$. $tag*{$blacksquare$}$



I would appreciate it if people could please provide feedback as to the correctness of my proof.



EDIT: Please be specific about what is incorrect and why. That way, I can learn what I did wrong and improve much more effectively.






proof-verification elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm trying to prove that the empty set is unique.



Proof:



Let $U = { a }$ be the universal set.



Assume $a notin emptyset '$ and $a notin emptyset$.



Without loss of generality, since $a notin emptyset'$, $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements. Since $emptyset '$ does not contain any elements, it must by default be a subset of $emptyset$, since the conditional statement



$$a in emptyset ' Rightarrow emptyset ' subseteq emptyset$$



is vacuously true.



Therefore, since $emptyset' subseteq emptyset$ and $emptyset subseteq emptyset '$, we have that $emptyset ' = emptyset$. $tag*{$blacksquare$}$



I would appreciate it if people could please provide feedback as to the correctness of my proof.



EDIT: Please be specific about what is incorrect and why. That way, I can learn what I did wrong and improve much more effectively.






proof-verification elementary-set-theory




proof-verification elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 6 at 17:37







The Pointer

















asked Jan 6 at 17:11









The PointerThe Pointer

2,48731641




2,48731641








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You should not need a universal set. Also, please be more careful with writing down the definition of what being empty means
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jan 6 at 17:22










  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen Are you saying that my proof is wrong, or that there are better ways to prove the theorem? Please be more specific about which part is incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    You should not need a universal set. Also, please be more careful with writing down the definition of what being empty means
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jan 6 at 17:22










  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen Are you saying that my proof is wrong, or that there are better ways to prove the theorem? Please be more specific about which part is incorrect.
    $endgroup$
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25










4




4




$begingroup$
You should not need a universal set. Also, please be more careful with writing down the definition of what being empty means
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jan 6 at 17:22




$begingroup$
You should not need a universal set. Also, please be more careful with writing down the definition of what being empty means
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
Jan 6 at 17:22












$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen Are you saying that my proof is wrong, or that there are better ways to prove the theorem? Please be more specific about which part is incorrect.
$endgroup$
– The Pointer
Jan 6 at 17:25






$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen Are you saying that my proof is wrong, or that there are better ways to prove the theorem? Please be more specific about which part is incorrect.
$endgroup$
– The Pointer
Jan 6 at 17:25












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The empty set is a subset of any set. Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets. Since $A$ is empty, then $A subseteq B$. Similarly, $B subseteq A$. Hence $A=B$.



EDIT: Your assumptions are a bit suspicious and the use of the universal set is really unnecessary. Basically the part: assume $anotin emptyset'$ and $emptyset'$ does not contain any elements is a bit wordy and I am not sure if it is a valid logic flow. The rest of your solution is pretty much the idea that I uncover above. All you need to claim is that two sets are empty and then use the fact that they are subsets of each-other.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    1












    $begingroup$

    Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets.
    Then the assertions $xin A$ and $xin B$ are logically equivalent.
    By the definition of equality of sets, $A=B$ iff $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)$, it follows that $A=B$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
      $endgroup$
      – Holo
      Jan 6 at 17:25










    • $begingroup$
      @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
      $endgroup$
      – Holo
      Jan 6 at 17:45












    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064125%2fmy-proof-that-the-empty-set-is-unique%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    The empty set is a subset of any set. Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets. Since $A$ is empty, then $A subseteq B$. Similarly, $B subseteq A$. Hence $A=B$.



    EDIT: Your assumptions are a bit suspicious and the use of the universal set is really unnecessary. Basically the part: assume $anotin emptyset'$ and $emptyset'$ does not contain any elements is a bit wordy and I am not sure if it is a valid logic flow. The rest of your solution is pretty much the idea that I uncover above. All you need to claim is that two sets are empty and then use the fact that they are subsets of each-other.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      The empty set is a subset of any set. Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets. Since $A$ is empty, then $A subseteq B$. Similarly, $B subseteq A$. Hence $A=B$.



      EDIT: Your assumptions are a bit suspicious and the use of the universal set is really unnecessary. Basically the part: assume $anotin emptyset'$ and $emptyset'$ does not contain any elements is a bit wordy and I am not sure if it is a valid logic flow. The rest of your solution is pretty much the idea that I uncover above. All you need to claim is that two sets are empty and then use the fact that they are subsets of each-other.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The empty set is a subset of any set. Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets. Since $A$ is empty, then $A subseteq B$. Similarly, $B subseteq A$. Hence $A=B$.



        EDIT: Your assumptions are a bit suspicious and the use of the universal set is really unnecessary. Basically the part: assume $anotin emptyset'$ and $emptyset'$ does not contain any elements is a bit wordy and I am not sure if it is a valid logic flow. The rest of your solution is pretty much the idea that I uncover above. All you need to claim is that two sets are empty and then use the fact that they are subsets of each-other.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        The empty set is a subset of any set. Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets. Since $A$ is empty, then $A subseteq B$. Similarly, $B subseteq A$. Hence $A=B$.



        EDIT: Your assumptions are a bit suspicious and the use of the universal set is really unnecessary. Basically the part: assume $anotin emptyset'$ and $emptyset'$ does not contain any elements is a bit wordy and I am not sure if it is a valid logic flow. The rest of your solution is pretty much the idea that I uncover above. All you need to claim is that two sets are empty and then use the fact that they are subsets of each-other.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 7 at 16:37

























        answered Jan 6 at 17:32









        EuxhenHEuxhenH

        484211




        484211























            1












            $begingroup$

            Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets.
            Then the assertions $xin A$ and $xin B$ are logically equivalent.
            By the definition of equality of sets, $A=B$ iff $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)$, it follows that $A=B$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:25










            • $begingroup$
              @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:45
















            1












            $begingroup$

            Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets.
            Then the assertions $xin A$ and $xin B$ are logically equivalent.
            By the definition of equality of sets, $A=B$ iff $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)$, it follows that $A=B$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:25










            • $begingroup$
              @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:45














            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets.
            Then the assertions $xin A$ and $xin B$ are logically equivalent.
            By the definition of equality of sets, $A=B$ iff $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)$, it follows that $A=B$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Let $A$ and $B$ be two empty sets.
            Then the assertions $xin A$ and $xin B$ are logically equivalent.
            By the definition of equality of sets, $A=B$ iff $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)$, it follows that $A=B$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Jan 6 at 17:23









            WuestenfuxWuestenfux

            5,4841513




            5,4841513








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:25










            • $begingroup$
              @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:45














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:25










            • $begingroup$
              @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
              $endgroup$
              – Holo
              Jan 6 at 17:45








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
            $endgroup$
            – Holo
            Jan 6 at 17:25




            $begingroup$
            This is not definition, this is an axiom. The definition will be closer to $forall x(xin ALongleftrightarrow xin B)land forall w(Ain wiff Bin w)$
            $endgroup$
            – Holo
            Jan 6 at 17:25












            $begingroup$
            @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
            $endgroup$
            – Holo
            Jan 6 at 17:45




            $begingroup$
            @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
            $endgroup$
            – Holo
            Jan 6 at 17:45


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3064125%2fmy-proof-that-the-empty-set-is-unique%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Aardman Animations

            Image
            Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com
            Read more

            Are they similar matrix

            Image
            0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19
            Read more

            “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis

            Image
            3 $begingroup$ I have stumbled upon an exercice for second year undegraduate student majoring in economics which I find quite demanding. I have an idea for the solution, but it seems awfully complicated, and I am wondering if there was a simpler way to solve it. This goes as follows: Let $(E, langle, rangle)$ be a euclidean space of dimension $n geq 2$ . 1) For any $x in E$ , show that $||x|| = sqrt{n}$ if and only if there exists $(e_1, dots, e_n)$ an orthonormal basis of $E$ such that $x =e_1+ ldots + e_n$ . 2) For any $(x,y) in E$ , show that $||x|| = sqrt{n}$ , $||y|| = sqrt{frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}}$ and $langle x,y rangle = frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ if and only if there eixsts $(e_1, ldots, e_n)$ an orthonormal basis of $E$ such that $x = e_1 + ldots + e_n$ and $y = e_1 + 2e_2 + ldots + ne_n$ The first q
            Read more