Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on How many elements are present in the subset of null set ?

Parent

How many elements are present in the subset of null set ?

+5
−0

How many elements are present in the subset of a null set?

This is one the question that appeared in my math exam.

Definition $1.1$ - Subset: A set $A$ is a subset of set $B$ if all the elements of $A$ are also elements of $B$

Definition $1.2$ - Null set or Void set or Empty set: If is a set containing no elements

Definition $1.3$ - Power set: It is the set of all possible subsets of a given set

Theorem $1.1$: Every set is a subset of itself

Theorem $1.2$: Null set is a subset of every set

I think the answer to this question is $0$ because,

$$\mathbf{No.\ of\ subsets} = 2^m$$

So, the number of subsets of a null set (denoted by $\emptyset$) which contains $0$ elements would be $2^0 = 1$ and that subset will be the null set $\emptyset$ itself. Hence, the number of elements in $0$.

But my math teacher told me that the answer is $1$. And her reasoning is as follows, she stated the same that the number of subset of a null set will be $1$ and she represented subset of null set as {$\emptyset$}. So she told the answer to be $1$ as the null set acted as an element in here.

I don't know which of the answers - $0$ or $1$ is correct. There is a debate among me and my teacher about the answers. So, you answers with explanation helps me. Could someone let me know . . .

History

0 comment threads

Post
+4
−0

The empty set (or the null set) has no elements. Notation: {}

The empty set has a single subset, which is the empty set. Any other set has at least one element in it, so it can not be a subset of the empty set. Hence the empty set is the only subset of itself.

The power set of the empty set consists of all of its subsets, that is, it consists of the empty set. Notation: {{}}. (A set which has a single element which is the empty set. The inner curly brackets are the empty set, while the outer ones are the set that contains the empty set.) The power set of the empty set has a single element.

My guess is that one of you thought about the number of elements of the empty set (0) and the other thought about the number of elements of the power set of the empty set (1). The number of elements of the only subset of the empty set is also zero, but it is a bit of a strange question.

To add more complications: The power set of the empty set has two subsets; the empty set is a subset and the power set itself is its own subset, much like any set is its own subset. One of these has no elements and the other has a single element.

Especially if you are talking, it is really easy to stumble here. I suggest drawings.

History

1 comment thread

The power set of the empty set has two subsets (6 comments)
The power set of the empty set has two subsets
watchmaker‭ wrote 10 months ago

"The power set of the empty set has two subsets; the empty set is there, as is the power set itself."

I think that part of your answer is wrong. The power set is not an element of the power set. We would be in big trouble if it were so ... think about "the set of all sets that do not contain itself".

If you state it as "The power set of the empty set has two subsets; the empty set is there, as is the power set itself."

Those (the empty set and the set itself) are identical, so there is effectively only one element.

celtschk‭ wrote 10 months ago

A subset and an element are two very different things. The empty set has no elements (that's the defining property), but one subset. The powerset of the empty seet has one element (the empty set), but two subsets (the empty set end itself). While (at least in the standard set theory) a set is never an element of itself, it is always a subset of itself (because obviously any element of it is an element of it).

tommi‭ wrote 10 months ago

What I tried to write is that the power set of the empty set has two subsets: The empty set is a subset and the power set of the empty set is another. A set is also its own subset. I hope it is clearer now.

watchmaker‭ wrote 10 months ago · edited 10 months ago

Terve Tommi,

"A set is also its own subset.", yes, but not as an element of itself.

For "sane" sets, $X\not\in X$, otherwise we are not talking about sets any more but about classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor went to the lunar bin for thinking about that.

tommi‭ wrote 10 months ago

Morjesta, is there a factual mistake in the response? I am out of practice, so it is possible, but I think the original formulation was vague and could be misunderstood, but I tried to edit it to be more explicit. Maybe I edited in the wrong place.

watchmaker‭ wrote 10 months ago

Morjesta Tommi, it looked to me like you were saying the set would contain itself as one element, not just as a subset. Maybe I've got your wording wrong.