0
NO- by definition a set is not a proper subset of itself . ( It is a subset, but not a proper one. )
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is an example of a proper subset?
Let A be the set {1,2,3,4} B is {1,2} and B is a proper subset of A C is {1} and C is also a proper subset of A. B and C are proper subsets of the set A because they are strictly contained in A. necessarily excludes at least one member of A. The set A is NOT a proper subset of itself.
Is null set proper subset of every set?
First of all, the null set( denoted by is a subset of every set. But it being a proper set or improper set is debatable. Many mathematicians regard it as an improper set, and rightly have as when we say a set is a subset of another, the super set always contains at least one element. For eg,. Let A be the set, in roster form we take it as: A = {ϕ}, we clearly see n(A)=1 then P(A) = {ϕ,{ϕ}} We observe that at least a set must have 1 element for it to have a proper set, but if we take A = ϕ ( i.e. n(A)=0), then clearly ϕ and A itself are improper sets of A and. Hence the minimum amount of proper sets a set has is nil and improper is 2. But I have seen a few high school text books who regard null set as a proper set, which is totally false, arguable by mathematicians, clearly signifying the lethargy of authors of the book failing to update their error driven books. I assure you, that null set is an improper set of every set.
How many proper subsets does the set A equals 1234 have?
16
How many subsets does 6 elements have?
If you have a set of 6 elements, you can make a total of 26 different subsets - including the empty set and the set itself.
Can a set be a subset of itself?
no. A subset would have to allow for values in its parent which are not in its self.
any set is a proper subset of itself?
true
Is null set a proper subset of any set?
yes, if the set being described is empty, we can talk about proper and improper subsets. there are no proper subsets of the empty set. the only subset of the empty set is the empty set itself. to be a proper subset, the subset must be strictly contained. so the empty set is an improper subset of itself, but it is a proper subset of every other set.
Can any set be a proper subset of itself give an example of why or why not?
No, by definition. A proper subset is a subset that contains some BUT NOT ALL elements of the original set.
What are examples of a proper subset?
The set {1, 3} is a proper subset of {1, 2, 3}.The set {a, b, c, d, e} is a proper subset of the set that contains all the letters in the alphabet.All subsets of a given set are proper subsets, except for the set itself. (Every set is a subset of itself, but not a proper subset.) The empty set is a proper subset of any non-empty set.This sounds like a school question. To answer it, first make up any set you like. Then, as examples of proper subsets, make sets that contain some, but not all, of the members of your original set.
Why can a proper subset be a subset of itself?
Because every set is a subset of itself. A proper subset cannot, however, be a proper subset of itself.
Why is the set of factors of a number not the same as the set of proper factors?
The set of proper factors doesn't include 1 and the number itself.
Why is the set of factors of a number not the same as the set of proper factors of the number?
The set of factors includes one and the number itself. Proper factors do not include those two.
What is the meaning of properset?
I believe the term "proper set" is not use in math. A "proper subset" is a subset of a given set, that is not equal to the set itself.
Why is a set of factors of a number not the same as a set of proper factors of what number?
Proper factors don't include one and the number itself.
Does every set have a proper subset?
No. The null set cannot have a proper subset. For any other set, the null set will be a proper subset. There will also be other proper subsets.
Is empty set a proper subset of any set?
NO
Why is the set of factor of a number not the same as the set of proper factors of that number?
Depending on your definition of proper factors, the set of proper factor factors either doesn't include 1 and/or the number itself for a given number.
