Empty set

"∅" redirects here. For similar symbols, see Ø (disambiguation).

For other uses of "Empty", see Empty (disambiguation).

The empty set is the set containing no elements.

In mathematics, and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero. Some axiomatic set theories ensure that the empty set exists by including an axiom of empty set; in other theories, its existence can be deduced. Many possible properties of sets are vacuously true for the empty set.

In some textbooks and popularizations, the empty set is referred to as the "null set". However null set is a distinct notion within the context of measure theory. In that setting, it describes a set of measure zero; such a set is not necessarily empty. The empty set may also be called the void set.

Contents

• 
  1 Notation
  


• 
  2 Properties
  
  
  
  • 
    2.1 Operations on the empty set
    
  
  
  
  


• 
  3 In other areas of mathematics
  
  
  
  • 
    3.1 Extended real numbers
    
  
  
  • 
    3.2 Topology
    
  
  
  • 
    3.3 Category theory
    
  
  
  • 
    3.4 Set theory
    
  
  
  
  


• 
  4 Questioned existence
  
  
  
  • 
    4.1 Axiomatic set theory
    
  
  
  • 
    4.2 Philosophical issues
    
  
  
  
  


• 
  5 See also
  


• 
  6 References
  


• 
  7 Further reading
  


• 
  8 External links
  

Notation

Main article: Null sign

A symbol for the empty set

Common notations for the empty set include "{}", "∅{displaystyle emptyset }", and "∅". The latter two symbols were introduced by the Bourbaki group (specifically André Weil) in 1939, inspired by the letter Ø in the Norwegian and Danish alphabets (and not related in any way to the Greek letter Φ).^[1] In the past, "0" was occasionally used as a symbol for the empty set, but this is now considered to be an improper use of notation.^[2]

The symbol ∅ is available at Unicode point U+2205.^[3] It can be coded in HTML as ∅ and as ∅. It can be coded in LaTeX as varnothing. The symbol ∅{displaystyle emptyset } is coded in LaTeX as emptyset.

Properties

In standard axiomatic set theory, by the principle of extensionality, two sets are equal if they have the same elements; therefore there can be only one set with no elements. Hence there is but one empty set, and we speak of "the empty set" rather than "an empty set".

The mathematical symbols employed below are explained here.

For any set A:

• The empty set is a subset of A:
  

  ∀A:∅⊆A{displaystyle forall A:varnothing subseteq A}

  
  


• The union of A with the empty set is A:
  

  ∀A:A∪∅=A{displaystyle forall A:Acup varnothing =A}

  
  


• The intersection of A with the empty set is the empty set:
  

  ∀A:A∩∅=∅{displaystyle forall A:Acap varnothing =varnothing }

  
  


• The Cartesian product of A and the empty set is the empty set:
  

  ∀A:A×∅=∅{displaystyle forall A:Atimes varnothing =varnothing }

  
  

The empty set has the following properties:

• Its only subset is the empty set itself:
  

  ∀A:A⊆∅⇒A=∅{displaystyle forall A:Asubseteq varnothing Rightarrow A=varnothing }

  
  


• The power set of the empty set is the set containing only the empty set:
  

  2∅={∅}{displaystyle 2^{varnothing }={varnothing }}

  
  


• Its number of elements (that is, its cardinality) is zero:
  

  card(∅)=0{displaystyle mathrm {card} (varnothing )=0}

  
  

The connection between the empty set and zero goes further, however: in the standard set-theoretic definition of natural numbers, sets are used to model the natural numbers. In this context, zero is modelled by the empty set.

For any property:

• For every element of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } the property holds (vacuous truth);


• There is no element of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } for which the property holds.

Conversely, if for some property and some set V, the following two statements hold:

• For every element of V the property holds;


• There is no element of V for which the property holds,

then V=∅{displaystyle V=varnothing }.

By the definition of subset, the empty set is a subset of any set A. That is, every element x of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } belongs to A. Indeed, if it were not true that every element of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } is in A then there would be at least one element of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } that is not present in A. Since there are no elements of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } at all, there is no element of ∅{displaystyle varnothing } that is not in A. Any statement that begins "for every element of ∅{displaystyle varnothing }" is not making any substantive claim; it is a vacuous truth. This is often paraphrased as "everything is true of the elements of the empty set."

Operations on the empty set

When speaking of the sum of the elements of a finite set, one is inevitably led to the convention that the sum of the elements of the empty set is zero. The reason for this is that zero is the identity element for addition. Similarly, the product of the elements of the empty set should be considered to be one (see empty product), since one is the identity element for multiplication.

A derangement is a permutation of a set without fixed points. The empty set can be considered a derangement of itself, because it has only one permutation (0!=1{displaystyle 0!=1}), and it is vacuously true that no element (of the empty set) can be found that retains its original position.

In other areas of mathematics

Extended real numbers

Since the empty set has no members, when it is considered as a subset of any ordered set, then every member of that set will be an upper bound and lower bound for the empty set. For example, when considered as a subset of the real numbers, with its usual ordering, represented by the real number line, every real number is both an upper and lower bound for the empty set.^[4] When considered as a subset of the extended reals formed by adding two "numbers" or "points" to the real numbers, namely negative infinity, denoted −∞,{displaystyle -infty !,,} which is defined to be less than every other extended real number, and positive infinity, denoted +∞,{displaystyle +infty !,,} which is defined to be greater than every other extended real number, then:

sup∅=min({−∞,+∞}∪R)=−∞,{displaystyle sup varnothing =min({-infty ,+infty }cup mathbb {R} )=-infty ,}

and

inf∅=max({−∞,+∞}∪R)=+∞.{displaystyle inf varnothing =max({-infty ,+infty }cup mathbb {R} )=+infty .}

That is, the least upper bound (sup or supremum) of the empty set is negative infinity, while the greatest lower bound (inf or infimum) is positive infinity. By analogy with the above, in the domain of the extended reals, negative infinity is the identity element for the maximum and supremum operators, while positive infinity is the identity element for minimum and infimum.

Topology

In any topological space X, the empty set is open by definition, as is X. Since the complement of an open set is closed and the empty set and X are complements of each other, the empty set is also closed, making it a clopen set. Moreover, the empty set is compact by the fact that every finite set is compact.

The closure of the empty set is empty. This is known as "preservation of nullary unions."

Category theory

If A is a set, then there exists precisely one function f from {} to A, the empty function. As a result, the empty set is the unique initial object of the category of sets and functions.

The empty set can be turned into a topological space, called the empty space, in just one way: by defining the empty set to be open. This empty topological space is the unique initial object in the category of topological spaces with continuous maps. In fact, it is a strict initial object: only the empty set has a function to the empty set.

Set theory

In the von Neumann construction of the ordinals, 0 is defined as the empty set, and the successor of an ordinal is defined as S(α)=α∪{α}{displaystyle S(alpha )=alpha cup {alpha }}. Thus, we have 0=∅{displaystyle 0=varnothing }, 1=0∪{0}={∅}{displaystyle 1=0cup {0}={varnothing }}, 2=1∪{1}={{∅},∅}{displaystyle 2=1cup {1}={{varnothing },varnothing }}, and so on. The von Neumann construction, along with the axiom of infinity, which guarantees the existence of at least one infinite set, can be used to construct the set of natural numbers, N0{displaystyle mathbb {N} _{0}}, such that the Peano axioms of arithmetic are satisfied.

Questioned existence

Axiomatic set theory

In Zermelo set theory, the existence of the empty set is assured by the axiom of empty set, and its uniqueness follows from the axiom of extensionality. However, the axiom of empty set can be shown redundant in at least two ways:

• Standard first-order logic implies, merely from the logical axioms, that something exists, and in the language of set theory, that thing must be a set. Now the existence of the empty set follows easily from the axiom of separation.


• Even using free logic (which does not logically imply that something exists), there is already an axiom implying the existence of at least one set, namely the axiom of infinity.

Philosophical issues

While the empty set is a standard and widely accepted mathematical concept, it remains an ontological curiosity, whose meaning and usefulness are debated by philosophers and logicians.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists. Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."^[5]

The popular syllogism

Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness

is often used to demonstrate the philosophical relation between the concept of nothing and the empty set. Darling writes that the contrast can be seen by rewriting the statements "Nothing is better than eternal happiness" and "[A] ham sandwich is better than nothing" in a mathematical tone. According to Darling, the former is equivalent to "The set of all things that are better than eternal happiness is ∅{displaystyle varnothing }" and the latter to "The set {ham sandwich} is better than the set ∅{displaystyle varnothing }". It is noted that the first compares elements of sets, while the second compares the sets themselves.^[5]

Jonathan Lowe argues that while the empty set:

"...was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, … we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object."

it is also the case that:

"All that we are ever informed about the empty set is that it (1) is a set, (2) has no members, and (3) is unique amongst sets in having no members. However, there are very many things that 'have no members', in the set-theoretical sense—namely, all non-sets. It is perfectly clear why these things have no members, for they are not sets. What is unclear is how there can be, uniquely amongst sets, a set which has no members. We cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation."^[6]

George Boolos argued that much of what has been heretofore obtained by set theory can just as easily be obtained by plural quantification over individuals, without reifying sets as singular entities having other entities as members.^[7]

See also

• Inhabited set


• Nothing

References

1. 
   ^ Earliest Uses of Symbols of Set Theory and Logic.
   


2. 
   ^ Rudin, Walter (1976). Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. p. 300. ISBN 007054235X..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"""""""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
   


3. 
   ^ Unicode Standard 5.2
   


4. 
   ^ Bruckner, A.N., Bruckner, J.B., and Thomson, B.S., 2008. Elementary Real Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall. P. 9.
   


5. 
   ^ ^ab D. J. Darling (2004). The universal book of mathematics. John Wiley and Sons. p. 106. ISBN 0-471-27047-4.
   


6. 
   ^ E. J. Lowe (2005). Locke. Routledge. p. 87.
   


7. 
   ^ *George Boolos, 1984, "To be is to be the value of a variable," The Journal of Philosophy 91: 430–49. Reprinted in his 1998 Logic, Logic and Logic (Richard Jeffrey, and Burgess, J., eds.) Harvard Univ. Press: 54–72.
   

Further reading

• 
  Halmos, Paul, Naive Set Theory. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960. Reprinted by Springer-Verlag, New York, 1974.
  ISBN 0-387-90092-6 (Springer-Verlag edition). Reprinted by Martino Fine Books, 2011.
  ISBN 978-1-61427-131-4 (Paperback edition).


• 
  Jech, Thomas (2002), Set Theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics (3rd millennium ed.), Springer, ISBN 3-540-44085-2
  


• 
  Graham, Malcolm (1975), Modern Elementary Mathematics (Hardcover)|format= requires |url= (help) (2nd ed.), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, ISBN 0155610392
  

External links

• Weisstein, Eric W. "Empty Set". MathWorld.

v t e Mathematical logic
General	Formal language Formation rule Formal proof Formal semantics Well-formed formula Set Element Class Classical logic Axiom Rule of inference Relation Theorem Logical consequence Type theory Symbol Syntax Theory
Systems	Formal system Deductive system Axiomatic system Hilbert style systems Natural deduction Sequent calculus
Traditional logic	Proposition Inference Argument Validity Cogency Syllogism Square of opposition Venn diagram
Propositional calculus and Boolean logic	Boolean functions Propositional calculus Propositional formula Logical connectives Truth tables Many-valued logic
Predicate logic	First-order Quantifiers Predicate Second-order Monadic predicate calculus
Naive set theory	Set Empty set Element Enumeration Extensionality Finite set Infinite set Subset Power set Countable set Uncountable set Recursive set Domain Codomain Image Map Function Relation Ordered pair
Set theory	Foundations of mathematics Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory Axiom of choice General set theory Kripke–Platek set theory Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory Morse–Kelley set theory Tarski–Grothendieck set theory
Model theory	Model Interpretation Non-standard model Finite model theory Truth value Validity
Proof theory	Formal proof Deductive system Formal system Theorem Logical consequence Rule of inference Syntax
Computability theory	Recursion Recursive set Recursively enumerable set Decision problem Church–Turing thesis Computable function Primitive recursive function

v t e Set theory
Axioms	Adjunction Choice countable dependent Constructibility (V=L) Determinacy Extensionality Infinity Limitation of size Pairing Power set Regularity Union Martin's axiom Axiom schema replacement specification
Operations	Cartesian product Complement De Morgan's laws Disjoint union Intersection Power set Set difference Symmetric difference Union
Concepts Methods	Cardinality Cardinal number (large) Class Constructible universe Continuum hypothesis Diagonal argument Element ordered pair tuple Family Forcing One-to-one correspondence Ordinal number Transfinite induction Venn diagram
Set types	Countable Empty Finite (hereditarily) Fuzzy Infinite (Dedekind-infinite) Recursive Subset · Superset Transitive Uncountable Universal
Theories	Alternative Axiomatic Naive Cantor's theorem Zermelo General Principia Mathematica New Foundations Zermelo–Fraenkel von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel Morse–Kelley Kripke–Platek Tarski–Grothendieck
Paradoxes Problems	Russell's paradox Suslin's problem Burali-Forti paradox
Set theorists	Abraham Fraenkel Bertrand Russell Ernst Zermelo Georg Cantor John von Neumann Kurt Gödel Paul Bernays Paul Cohen Richard Dedekind Thomas Jech Thoralf Skolem Willard Quine

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here