Re: Question about null set
On 25-05-2005 17:17, agapito6314@xxxxxxx wrote:
I believe I understand why the empty set is a set of ordered pairs,
vacuously: the statement "for all x, if x belongs to empty set then x
is an ordered pair" is always true. Now Halmos in his book proposes to
prove this by looking for an element of null set that is not an ordered
pair. How does the proof proceed? Thanks.
If there was an element x of the null set that is not an ordered pair,
then the null would contain the element x, which is absurd, since the
null set contains no elements.
Best regards,
Jose Carlos Santos
.
Relevant Pages
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
... to your question is that if a set has no ordered pair as a member, ... then the domain and range of the set is the empty set. ... Sheesh! ...
(sci.math) - Re: Ordnung (Kamke)
... Akihiro Kanamori, The Empty Set, the Singleton, and the Ordered Pair ...
(de.sci.mathematik) - Re: Infinity
... LauLuna writes: ... ordered triples etc. ... Every element of the empty set is an ordered pair. ...
(sci.math) - Re: Zuhairs ordered pairs
... contains the empty set in its transitive closure. ... no part of the essence of an ordered pair -- intuitively, ... closures and ALL sets have 0 in their transitive closure. ... I was questioning the idea that a representation of pairs on which ...
(sci.logic) |
|
