Because all its elements belong to itself.
Because every set is a subset of itself. A proper subset cannot, however, be a proper subset of itself.
Every set contains the empty set. Every set is a subset of itself.
NO- by definition a set is not a proper subset of itself . ( It is a subset, but not a proper one. )
The null set. Every set is a subset of itself and so the null set is a subset of the null set.
No. The empty is the a subset of every set and every set is a subset of itself.
The only subset of an empty set is the empty set itself.
Yes,an empty set is the subset of every set. The subset of an empty set is only an empty set itself.
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.
A subset of a set S can be S itself. A proper subset cannot.
If you have a set S, the only improper subset of S is S itself. An improper subset contains all elements of S and no others. It is therefore equivalent to S. For example if S ={1,2,3} then the improper subset is {1,2,3}, and an example proper subset is {1,2}.
An improper subset of a set is a subset that includes the set itself. For example, if we have a set ( A = {1, 2, 3} ), then the improper subsets of ( A ) are ( A ) itself, which is ( {1, 2, 3} ), and the empty set ( \emptyset ). The term "improper subset" is often used to distinguish between proper subsets (which do not include the entire set) and the set itself.
no. A subset would have to allow for values in its parent which are not in its self.