My proof that the empty set is unique












0














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




















  • 4




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










  • @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.
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25


















0














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




















  • 4




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










  • @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.
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25
















0












0








0







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















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

2,60421335




2,60421335








  • 4




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










  • @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.
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25
















  • 4




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










  • @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.
    – The Pointer
    Jan 6 at 17:25










4




4




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




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












@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.
– The Pointer
Jan 6 at 17:25






@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.
– The Pointer
Jan 6 at 17:25












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














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































    1














    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

















    • 1




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










    • @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
      – 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














    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




























      1














      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


























        1












        1








        1






        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














        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

        472210




        472210























            1














            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

















            • 1




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










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
















            1














            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

















            • 1




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










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














            1












            1








            1






            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












            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

            3,7861411




            3,7861411








            • 1




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










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














            • 1




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










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








            1




            1




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




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












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




            @SvanN because axiom and definition are different things, there are models(not of ZF) where extensionality is not an axiom
            – 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

            Mario Kart Wii

            Image
            Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
            Read more

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Image
            5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
            Read more

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

            Image
            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
            Read more