True or false. A appropriate subset the a collection is chin a subset of the set, but not vice versa.

You are watching: A collection of objects is called

True or false. The empty set is a subset that every set.

I need you confirm if mine answers room correct or dorn

my effort

1-TRUE. A set is a collection of objects. The objects are referred to as aspects of the set.

2-FALSE. A “proper subset” the a collection A is identified as a set B the is included by A, however is no equal to A. If A had a subset B, wherein B is characterized as A, then A=B, and thus walk not satisfy the problems for a proper subset, although the is still constantly a subset of itself.

3-TRUE. An empty collection contains no elements while a subset contains elements that room not in the other comparing set. Hence an empty collection becomes a subset of all the various other sets since it has no elements and also the other collection contains elements.

edited Aug 15 "15 at 12:41

Gerry Myerson
166k1111 yellow badges184184 silver badges355355 bronze title
inquiry Aug 15 "15 in ~ 12:40

belo gadelobelo gadelo
30311 gold badge33 silver badges99 bronze title
add a comment |

3 answer 3

active earliest Votes
FALSE. If you enable any set, you finish up v paradoxes. The most famous of this is Russell"s paradox.


TRUE. Because that every aspect in the empty set, that facet is an element of any set $A$. This is vacuously true.

answer Aug 15 "15 in ~ 12:42

race BannonRace Bannon
1,76511 yellow badge99 silver- badges2121 bronze title
include a comment |
You cannot simply take any collection of objects to it is in a set.

There has been a long process in clarifying set theory till it is consistent.

There are several collection theories in reality in contemporary rewildtv.comematics.

The most frequently used is the collection theory offered by adopting the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms.

Here they room

point out
answered Aug 15 "15 at 13:16

19888 bronze badges
add a comment |
FALSEA collection can"t be any type of collection that objects because particular collections space paradoxical. For example, take that a set is a collection of every sets such the these sets are not members of themselves (Russel"s Paradox), and we"ll call that set $A$. Then by meaning $A$ should encompass itself in $A$ yet if it does so then $A$ contains a member(itself) that is a member that itself. And also if $A$ walk not encompass itself then it can"t be a collection of all collection such that these sets do not save themselves.

Another simpilier paradox is Cantor"s paradox in naive collection theory that says say the $X$ is the collection of all sets, but such a set can"t exist since you can constantly formulate a new set that includes all the facets that $X$ does and the collection including $X$ the is $X$, so girlfriend can"t have actually a collection of all sets.


See more: What Is An Implied Metaphor? ? + Example What Is An Implied Metaphor For “Brainly”

TRUE If $A$ is equal to $B$ then every the facets in A are additionally in B and vice verse. However if $A$ does not contain all the aspects $B$ or $B$ does not contain all aspects in $A$ just then have the right to one a it is in a suitable subset that the other. So it is true.

TRUE The empty collection is a subset of every set. This needs to do through the meaning of a subset.

Please check out the link listed below if you desire to watch an explanation

and right here if want to watch the proof