I assume the question is meant to be about equivalent sets.
Two sets are said to be equivalent if they have the same cardinality. For finite sets, it means that they must both have the same number of distinct elements. More generally, two sets are equivalent if (and only if) there exists a one-to-one mapping (bijection) from one set to the other. This definition applies to equivalence of infinite sets but does give rise to some counter-intuitive results. For example, the set of all integers is equivalent to its proper subset, the set of all odd integers. The mapping for all to evens is x-> 2x.
the set of every set is that set
null set or empty set, is a set with no elements.
The noun 'set' is a standard collective noun for:a set of bowlsa set of cutlerya set of dishesa set of golf clubsa set of knivesa set of mathematiciansa set of oystersa set of sailsa set of tires
Empty set or null set
empty set is a set because its name indicate as it is the set.
The concept of closure: If A and B are sets the intersection of sets is a set. Then if the intersection of two sets is a set and that set could be empty but still a set. The same for union, a set A union set Null is a set by closure,and is the set A.
The set contained in another set is termed as a sub-set.
A null set is a set that does not contain any elements, an empty set.
A null set is a set with nothing in it. A set containing a null set is still containing a "null set". Therefore it is right to say that the null set is not the same as a set containing only the null set.
That is the definition of a closed set.
false, because the complement of a set is the set of all elements that are not in the set.
sub set is set