0

Trvially, the empty set $\emptyset$ is a subset of every set $V$(say). Does it mean that $\emptyset$ is also a subset of every subset of $V$? i.e , if $A$ is an arbitrary subset of $V$, then will it be right to say that $\emptyset$ $\subseteq A$?

gete
  • 1,412
  • 1
  • 13
  • 26
  • 2
    Every bag can be made empty by removing things from it, but not every bag literally has an empty bag inside it. (The bags analogy is only helpful up to a point, but I think it is helpful here.) – Noah Schweber Feb 04 '19 at 17:14
  • By "belongs to" -- do you mean "is an element of" or "is a subset of"? – Jakob E. Feb 04 '19 at 17:16
  • Probably a handful of other questions are also good as duplicates. – Asaf Karagila Feb 04 '19 at 17:17
  • If a statement is true for all sets, and a subset of a set is in particular a set (it is a sub-set), then the statement is true for all subsets of a given set as well, yes. – Asaf Karagila Feb 04 '19 at 17:44

1 Answers1

3

No: $\emptyset \notin \emptyset$ (but $\emptyset \subseteq \emptyset$).

Jakob E.
  • 915
  • do you mean that empty set is a subet of every subset? If so, i will be done – gete Feb 04 '19 at 17:13
  • 1
    @gete Yes - a subset, but not necessarily an element. – Noah Schweber Feb 04 '19 at 17:16
  • @gete I interpreted "belongs to" as "is an element of". You might want to update your question, if you meant something else – Jakob E. Feb 04 '19 at 17:18
  • @bruderjakob17 my question was a bit wrongly framed anyways, i think Noah Schweber has got the answer in his comment. I am editing my pose. – gete Feb 04 '19 at 17:27