I was told once that the null set is the compliment to the universal set... I'm not convinced of this, however because the null set is a subset of the universal set as well. While I can't think of anything offhand that would prevent both of these statements from being true, it seems to me that they are contradictory statements.
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.
The null set. Every set is a subset of itself and so the null set is a subset of the null set.
There is only one null set. It is 'the' null set. It is a set which does not contain any numbers.
The null set is a set which has no members. It is an empty set.
A null set is a set that contains no elements.
There is only one null set. It is 'the' null set. It is a set which does not contain any numbers. It is represented by the symbol ∅.
There is only one null set. It is 'the' null set. It is a set which does not contain any numbers. It is represented by the symbol ∅.
yes
If it is contradictory to a standing Constitutional law. Also, previous court rulings stand as precedents. If cases arise about laws which counter previously set precedents, courts may rule those laws unconstitutional or null and void.
a set which has no elements in it is called a null set. example - A={}.
A null or empty set is a set that does not contain any elements.