There is only one empty set, also known as the null set. It is the set having no members at all. It is a subset of every set, since it has no member that is not a member of any other 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.
The empty set!
An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.An empty set is not a proper subset of an empty set.
The empty element is a subset of any set--the empty set is even a subset of itself. But it is not an element of every set; in particular, the empty set cannot be an element of itself because the empty set has no elements.
There is only one empty set, also known as the null set. It is the set having no members at all. It is a subset of every set, since it has no member that is not a member of any other set.
The null set. Every set is a subset of itself and so the null set is a subset of the null set.
Yes the null set is a subset of every 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.
Yes,an empty set is the subset of every set. The subset of an empty set is only an empty set itself.
The null set. It is a subset of every set.
yes
The definition of subset is ; Set A is a subset of set B if every member of A is a member of B. The null set is a subset of every set because every member of the null set is a member of every set. This is true because there are no members of the null set, so anything you say about them is vacuously true.
It isn't. The empty set is a subset - but not a proper subset - of the empty set.
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.
Every set contains the empty set. Every set is a subset of itself.
Yes - because, if something is an object of the null set, then it is also an element of the other set. Since nothing is an element of the empty set, the above statement is trivially true.