It is NOT contradictory. Not any more than the number zero is "contradictory" to integers.
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 ∅.
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.
yes
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.