Hubbry Logo
Empty setEmpty setMain
Open search
Empty set
Community hub
Empty set
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Empty set
Empty set
Empty set
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The empty set is the set containing no elements.

In mathematics, the empty set or void set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero.[1] Some axiomatic set theories ensure that the empty set exists by including an axiom of empty set, while in other theories, its existence can be deduced. Many possible properties of sets are vacuously true for the empty set.

Any set other than the empty set is called non-empty.

In some textbooks and popularizations, the empty set is referred to as the "null set".[1] However, null set is a distinct notion within the context of measure theory, in which it describes a set of measure zero (which is not necessarily empty).

Notation

[edit]
Main article: Null sign
A symbol for the empty set

Common notations for the empty set include "{ }", "", and "∅". The latter two symbols were introduced by the Bourbaki group (specifically André Weil) in 1939, inspired by the letter Ø (U+00D8 Ø LATIN CAPITAL LETTER O WITH STROKE) in the Danish and Norwegian alphabets.[2] In the past, "0" (the numeral zero) was occasionally used as a symbol for the empty set, but this is now considered to be an improper use of notation.[3]

The symbol ∅ is available at Unicode point U+2205 ∅ EMPTY SET.[4] It can be coded in HTML as ∅ and as ∅ or as ∅. It can be coded in LaTeX as \varnothing. The symbol is coded in LaTeX as \emptyset.

When writing in languages such as Danish and Norwegian, where the empty set character may be confused with the alphabetic letter Ø (as when using the symbol in linguistics), the Unicode character U+29B0 ⦰ REVERSED EMPTY SET may be used instead.[5]

Properties

[edit]

In standard axiomatic set theory, by the principle of extensionality, two sets are equal if they have the same elements (that is, neither of them has an element not in the other). As a result, there can be only one set with no elements, hence the usage of "the empty set" rather than "an empty set".

The only subset of the empty set is the empty set itself; equivalently, the power set of the empty set is the set containing only the empty set. The number of elements of the empty set (i.e., its cardinality) is zero. The empty set is the only set with either of these properties.

For any set A:

For any property P:

  • For every element of , the property P holds (vacuous truth).
  • There is no element of for which the property P holds.

Conversely, if for some property P and some set V, the following two statements hold:

  • For every element of V the property P holds
  • There is no element of V for which the property P holds

then

By the definition of subset, the empty set is a subset of any set A. That is, every element x of belongs to A. Indeed, if it were not true that every element of is in A, then there would be at least one element of that is not present in A. Since there are no elements of at all, there is no element of that is not in A. Any statement that begins "for every element of " is not making any substantive claim; it is a vacuous truth. This is often paraphrased as "everything is true of the elements of the empty set."

In the usual set-theoretic definition of natural numbers, zero is modelled by the empty set.

Operations on the empty set

[edit]

When speaking of the sum of the elements of a finite set, one is inevitably led to the convention that the sum of the elements of the empty set (the empty sum) is zero. The reason for this is that zero is the identity element for addition. Similarly, the product of the elements of the empty set (the empty product) should be considered to be one, since one is the identity element for multiplication.[6]

A derangement is a permutation of a set without fixed points. The empty set can be considered a derangement of itself, because it has only one permutation (), and it is vacuously true that no element (of the empty set) can be found that retains its original position.

In other areas of mathematics

[edit]

Extended real numbers

[edit]

Since the empty set has no member when it is considered as a subset of any ordered set, every member of that set will be an upper bound and lower bound for the empty set. For example, when considered as a subset of the real numbers, with its usual ordering, represented by the real number line, every real number is both an upper and lower bound for the empty set.[7] When considered as a subset of the extended reals formed by adding two "numbers" or "points" to the real numbers (namely negative infinity, denoted which is defined to be less than every other extended real number, and positive infinity, denoted which is defined to be greater than every other extended real number), we have that: and

That is, the least upper bound (sup or supremum) of the empty set is negative infinity, while the greatest lower bound (inf or infimum) is positive infinity. By analogy with the above, in the domain of the extended reals, negative infinity is the identity element for the maximum and supremum operators, while positive infinity is the identity element for the minimum and infimum operators.

Topology

[edit]

In any topological space , the empty set is open by definition, as is . Since the complement of an open set is closed and the empty set and are complements of each other, the empty set is also closed, making it a clopen set. Moreover, the empty set is compact by the fact that every finite set is compact.

A topological space is said to have the indiscrete topology if the only open sets are and the entire space.

The closure of the empty set is empty. This is known as "preservation of nullary unions".[8]

Category theory

[edit]

If is a set, then there exists precisely one function from to the empty function. As a result, the empty set is the unique initial object of the category of sets and functions.

The empty set can be turned into a topological space, called the empty space, in just one way: by defining the empty set to be open. This empty topological space is the unique initial object in the category of topological spaces with continuous maps. In fact, it is a strict initial object: only the empty set has a function to the empty set.

Set theory

[edit]

In the von Neumann construction of the ordinals, 0 is defined as the empty set, and the successor of an ordinal is defined as . Thus, we have , , , and so on. The von Neumann construction, along with the axiom of infinity, which guarantees the existence of at least one infinite set, can be used to construct the set of natural numbers, , such that the Peano axioms of arithmetic are satisfied.

Existence

[edit]

Historical issues

[edit]

In the context of sets of real numbers, Cantor used to denote " contains no single point". This notation was utilized in definitions; for example, Cantor defined two sets as being disjoint if their intersection has an absence of points; however, it is debatable whether Cantor viewed as an existent set on its own, or if Cantor merely used as an emptiness predicate. Zermelo accepted itself as a set, but considered it an "improper set".[9]

Axiomatic set theory

[edit]

In Zermelo set theory, the existence of the empty set is assured by the axiom of empty set, and its uniqueness follows from the axiom of extensionality. However, the axiom of empty set can be shown redundant in at least two ways:

  • Standard first-order logic implies, merely from the logical axioms, that something exists, and in the language of set theory, that thing must be a set. Now the existence of the empty set follows easily from the axiom of separation.
  • Even using free logic (which does not logically imply that something exists), there is already an axiom implying the existence of at least one set, namely the axiom of infinity.

Philosophical issues

[edit]

While the empty set is a standard and widely accepted mathematical concept, it remains an ontological curiosity, whose meaning and usefulness are debated by philosophers and logicians.

The empty set is not the same thing as nothing; rather, it is a set with nothing inside it and a set is always something. This issue can be overcome by viewing a set as a bag—an empty bag undoubtedly still exists. Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."[10]

The popular syllogism

Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness

is often used to demonstrate the philosophical relation between the concept of nothing and the empty set. Darling writes that the contrast can be seen by rewriting the statements "Nothing is better than eternal happiness" and "[A] ham sandwich is better than nothing" in a mathematical tone. According to Darling, the former is equivalent to "The set of all things that are better than eternal happiness is " and the latter to "The set {ham sandwich} is better than the set ". The first compares elements of sets, while the second compares the sets themselves.[10]

Jonathan Lowe argues that while the empty set

was undoubtedly an important landmark in the history of mathematics, … we should not assume that its utility in calculation is dependent upon its actually denoting some object.

it is also the case that:

"All that we are ever informed about the empty set is that it (1) is a set, (2) has no members, and (3) is unique amongst sets in having no members. However, there are very many things that 'have no members', in the set-theoretical sense—namely, all non-sets. It is perfectly clear why these things have no members, for they are not sets. What is unclear is how there can be, uniquely amongst sets, a set which has no members. We cannot conjure such an entity into existence by mere stipulation."[11]

George Boolos argued that much of what has been heretofore obtained by set theory can just as easily be obtained by plural quantification over individuals, without reifying sets as singular entities having other entities as members.[12]

See also

[edit]
  • 0 – Number
  • Inhabited set – Property of sets used in constructive mathematics
  • Nothing – Complete absence of anything; the opposite of everything
  • Power set – Mathematical set of all subsets of a set

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Empty set

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , the empty set, also known as the or void set, is the unique set that contains no elements, serving as a foundational concept in . It is denoted by the symbol ∅ (phi) or sometimes by empty curly braces {}, and its —the number of elements it contains—is zero. This set exists by the axiom of the empty set in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF), which asserts that there is a set with no members, ensuring a starting point for constructing all other sets without relying on prior elements. Its uniqueness follows from the , which states that two sets are equal if they have the same elements; since ∅ has none, no other set matches it. The empty set plays a crucial role in the structure of , acting as a of every possible set because there are no elements in ∅ that fail to belong to any other set A (i.e., ∅ ⊆ A for all A). It forms the basis for defining natural numbers in the von Neumann construction, where 0 is identified with ∅, 1 with {∅}, and so on, enabling the representation of ordinals and cardinals. In the cumulative hierarchy of sets, the empty set populates the lowest level V₀ = ∅, from which higher levels build the entire set-theoretic universe V. Additionally, the power set of the empty set is {∅}, the singleton containing only itself, illustrating its self-referential yet non-contradictory nature. Properties of the empty set extend to various mathematical contexts, such as , where it is both open and closed in any , and , where it can form degenerate structures like a but not a due to the absence of an . In , ∅ is the initial object in the (Set), characterized by a unique to any other set, underscoring its universal mapping properties. These attributes highlight the empty set's paradoxical yet essential status: empty of content, yet indispensable for rigorous mathematical foundations.

Definition and Notation

Definition

In set theory, the empty set is defined as the set that contains no elements whatsoever. This concept serves as a foundational building block, representing the absence of any membership in a collection. Formally, a set SS is empty if, for every object xx in the universe of discourse, xx does not belong to SS; in logical terms, this is expressed as ∀x(x∉S)\forall x (x \notin S). This condition ensures that no object satisfies the membership relation with respect to the empty set, distinguishing it from any non-empty set, which has at least one element that does belong to it. The empty set is unique within the universe of sets, as the guarantees that any two sets with exactly the same elements are identical, and since both would have no elements, they must coincide. This uniqueness positions the empty set as a singular, prerequisite object essential for constructing all other sets in axiomatic frameworks.

Notation

The standard symbol for the empty set is ∅, a slashed circle introduced by as part of the Bourbaki group's work in 1939, inspired by the Norwegian letter Ø to represent the set with no elements. Prior to this, historical variants included the empty braces {} and the uppercase lambda Λ, the latter used by in his 1889 Arithmetices principia to denote the null class. In mathematical literature and print, ∅ is the predominant notation for the empty set, emphasizing its formal status in . However, in informal texts, programming languages, and some computational contexts, the empty braces {} are commonly employed to represent it, as seen in languages like Python, where set() denotes an empty set, while {} denotes an empty (which may cause confusion in contexts where both are used). In typesetting, particularly with , two main commands produce variants of the symbol: \emptyset, which renders a slashed zero-like form (∅), and \varnothing from the amssymb package, which produces a more circular slashed version (∅); the former has become dominant in modern digital due to its adoption in systems like by in 1979. To avoid ambiguity, the empty set symbol ∅ is distinguished from similar characters: it differs from the Greek lowercase φ (often used for functions or angles) and the Latin capital (U+00D8), which is a distinct letter not intended for mathematical sets.

Basic Properties

Equality and Cardinality

The empty set is unique in the sense that there is exactly one such set in any given universe of discourse. This follows from the , which states that two sets are equal they have precisely the same elements: if AA and BB are both empty, then for all xx, x∈Ax \in A if and only if x∈Bx \in B holds vacuously, since no xx satisfies the antecedent, implying A=BA = B. Thus, no distinct empty sets can exist. The of the empty set, denoted ∣∅∣|\emptyset|, is . measures the "size" of a set via the of a to a representative; the empty set admits a only to itself, and is the unique corresponding to this of sets with no elements. In foundational systems such as those using von Neumann ordinals, the natural number is defined as the empty set itself, reinforcing that ∣∅∣=[0](/page/0)|\emptyset| = [0](/page/0). The empty set is the unique set possessing zero elements and thus cannot be equal to any non-empty set, as the latter contains at least one element, violating extensionality. While the empty set is a subset of every set, it equals only itself among all sets.

Membership and Subsets

The empty set contains no elements, meaning that for every object xx, x∉∅x \notin \emptyset. This property ensures that any statement of the form ∀x(x∈∅→P(x))\forall x (x \in \emptyset \to P(x)) is vacuously true for any predicate P(x)P(x), as the premise x∈∅x \in \emptyset never holds. A key consequence is the empty set's role as a universal subset: ∅⊆A\emptyset \subseteq A for every set AA. This follows from the definition of , which requires ∀x(x∈∅→x∈A)\forall x (x \in \emptyset \to x \in A); since no xx satisfies x∈∅x \in \emptyset, the implication holds vacuously. The power set of the empty set, denoted P(∅)\mathcal{P}(\emptyset), consists solely of the empty set itself, so P(∅)={∅}\mathcal{P}(\emptyset) = \{\emptyset\}. This yields a cardinality of ∣P(∅)∣=1|\mathcal{P}(\emptyset)| = 1, as there are no other subsets possible. Since ∅\emptyset has no proper subsets, it serves as the terminal element in any strictly decreasing chain of subsets under inclusion, preventing infinite descent within the subset lattice of any set. This property underpins well-foundedness in set-theoretic constructions, ensuring that descending chains of subsets terminate.

Operations and Algebraic Structure

Union and Intersection

The union of the empty set with any set AA results in AA itself, as the empty set contributes no elements to the collection.\] $\emptyset \cup A = A$ for all sets $A$.\[ This property establishes the empty set as the in the of sets under union.$$] In contrast, the intersection of the empty set with any set AA yields the empty set, since there are no elements common to both.[ $\emptyset \cap A = \emptyset$ for all sets $A$.] Thus, the empty set acts as an absorbing element for the operation, where intersecting with ∅\emptyset nullifies any set.[$$ Regarding set difference, removing the empty set from any set AA leaves AA unchanged, as no elements are subtracted.\] $A \setminus \emptyset = A$ for all sets $A$.\[ Conversely, the difference of the empty set minus any set AA remains empty, since ∅\emptyset has no elements to retain after exclusion.\] $\emptyset \setminus A = \emptyset$ for all sets $A$.\[ Within a fixed UU, the complement of the empty set is UU itself, encompassing all elements not in ∅\emptyset.\] $\overline{\emptyset} = U$.\[ This underscores the empty set's role as the minimal element whose negation covers the entire universe.[]

Cartesian Products and Functions

The Cartesian product of the empty set with any other set is empty. For sets AA and BB, the A×BA \times B consists of all ordered pairs (a,b)(a, b) such that a∈Aa \in A and b∈Bb \in B. If A=∅A = \emptyset and BB is any set (empty or non-empty), no such pairs exist because there are no elements in AA to form the first component, so ∅×B=∅\emptyset \times B = \emptyset. Similarly, A×∅=∅A \times \emptyset = \emptyset for any set AA, and thus ∅×∅=∅\emptyset \times \emptyset = \emptyset. In the context of functions, the empty set admits a unique function to any set. A function f:∅→Sf: \emptyset \to S for any set SS is a subset of ∅×S\emptyset \times S that relates every element of ∅\emptyset to exactly one element in SS; since ∅×S=∅\emptyset \times S = \emptyset, the only such subset is the empty set itself, called the empty function. This empty function exists and is unique regardless of whether SS is empty or non-empty. In particular, the unique function ∅→∅\emptyset \to \emptyset is also the empty function. Relations involving the empty set follow similarly from the structure. A on sets AA and BB is any of A×BA \times B; the empty relation is the empty set ∅\emptyset, which is a valid of any , including ∅×∅=∅\emptyset \times \emptyset = \emptyset. Thus, the empty relation holds vacuously on the empty set. These properties imply that the empty set serves as the initial object in the (denoted Set), where objects are sets and s are functions. An initial object II requires a unique I→XI \to X for every object XX; here, the unique empty function ∅→X\emptyset \to X satisfies this for any set XX, and the empty set is the unique such object up to .

Role in

Axiomatic Foundations

In axiomatic set theory, particularly Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF), the existence of the empty set is postulated by the empty set axiom, which asserts that there exists a set SS such that for all xx, x∉Sx \notin S, formally stated as ∃S ∀x ¬(x∈S)\exists S \, \forall x \, \neg (x \in S). This axiom ensures the foundation for constructing all other sets, as it provides the initial object from which further structures are built. In some formulations of ZF, the empty set axiom is considered redundant and can be derived using the axiom of pairing and the axiom schema of separation: given any set xx, the separation schema yields the subset {y∈x∣y≠y}\{ y \in x \mid y \neq y \}, which contains no elements since the condition y≠yy \neq y is always false, thus producing the empty set. The uniqueness of the empty set follows directly from the , which states that two sets are equal if they have the same elements: ∀x∀y (∀z(z∈x↔z∈y)→x=y)\forall x \forall y \, (\forall z (z \in x \leftrightarrow z \in y) \to x = y). To see this, suppose AA and BB are sets with no elements. Then for any zz, z∉Az \notin A and z∉Bz \notin B, so z∈A↔z∈Bz \in A \leftrightarrow z \in B holds vacuously for all zz. By , A=BA = B. Thus, there is exactly one empty set, conventionally denoted ∅\emptyset. The empty set plays a central role in the von Neumann construction of the natural numbers within ZF set theory. Here, the number zero is defined as 0=∅0 = \emptyset, the successor of a set xx is S(x)=x∪{x}S(x) = x \cup \{x\}, and the natural numbers are built iteratively: 1=S(0)={∅}1 = S(0) = \{\emptyset\}, 2=S(1)={∅,{∅}}2 = S(1) = \{\emptyset, \{\emptyset\}\}, and so on. This construction identifies each natural number nn with the set of all preceding natural numbers, ensuring that the ordinals are transitive sets well-ordered by membership, as formalized in von Neumann's axiomatization. The empty set also serves as the base of the cumulative hierarchy in , denoted VαV_\alpha for ordinals α\alpha, which organizes all sets by their rank. Specifically, V0=∅V_0 = \emptyset, and for successor ordinals, Vα+1=P(Vα)V_{\alpha+1} = \mathcal{P}(V_\alpha) (the power set of VαV_\alpha), while for limit ordinals λ\lambda, Vλ=⋃β<λVβV_\lambda = \bigcup_{\beta < \lambda} V_\beta. This hierarchy, introduced by von Neumann, captures the iterative process of set formation starting from the empty set, underpinning the structure of the entire of sets V=⋃αVαV = \bigcup_{\alpha} V_\alpha.

Universal and Initial Object

In , the empty set ∅\emptyset serves as the initial object in the category Set\mathbf{Set}, whose objects are sets and morphisms are functions between them. An initial object II in a category C\mathcal{C} is an object such that, for every object AA in C\mathcal{C}, there exists a unique !:I→A! : I \to A. In Set\mathbf{Set}, this unique from ∅\emptyset to any set AA is the empty function, which exists regardless of whether AA is empty or non-empty, as there are no elements in ∅\emptyset to map. This uniqueness arises because any purported function f:∅→Af : \emptyset \to A must satisfy the function definition for all elements in the domain, but since the domain ∅\emptyset contains no elements, the condition is vacuously true for the empty assignment, and no other assignment is possible. Initial objects are unique up to unique isomorphism: if II and JJ are both initial objects in C\mathcal{C}, then there exists a unique isomorphism I→JI \to J, ensuring that ∅\emptyset is the only initial object in Set\mathbf{Set} up to this equivalence. While ∅\emptyset is not a terminal object in Set\mathbf{Set}—terminal objects in Set\mathbf{Set} are singleton sets, for which there is a unique function from any set BB to the singleton—the empty set does act as a terminal object in other categories built on sets, such as the category Rel\mathbf{Rel} of sets and relations, where it is both and terminal. In categories where the coincide to form a zero object, such as ∅\emptyset in Rel\mathbf{Rel}, this object enables the construction of a zero between any pair of objects XX and YY, defined as the composite X→∅→YX \to \emptyset \to Y via the unique s; this zero composes appropriately and simplifies limits, colimits, and exact sequences in additive or pointed categories.

Applications in Mathematics

Topology and Geometry

In topology, the empty set ∅ serves as the underlying set for the empty topological space, which admits a unique consisting solely of ∅ itself. This structure is both discrete and indiscrete, as the power set of ∅ coincides with the , satisfying the axioms vacuously while having no proper . The interior of ∅ in any is ∅, being the largest open contained within it, and its closure is also ∅, as the smallest containing it. By definition, ∅ is open in every , as topologies must include the empty set to ensure arbitrary unions (including the empty union) yield open sets. Similarly, ∅ is closed, since its complement is the entire , which is open, or equivalently, as the empty of closed sets. These properties hold universally, independent of the specific on a nonempty . The empty set exhibits compactness vacuously in any : every open cover of ∅ has a finite subcover, namely the empty collection, as there are no points to cover. It is also connected, since it cannot be expressed as a union of two nonempty disjoint open sets—any such decomposition would require nonempty components, which ∅ lacks. In geometry, ∅ functions as the empty manifold, which satisfies the axioms of a smooth or topological manifold of any dimension vacuously and is included in definitions for convenience in cobordism and homotopy theory. For instance, in oriented cobordism, the empty manifold acts as the unit element under disjoint union. In simplicial complexes, ∅ is the unique (-1)-simplex, serving as the base case where the empty complex has dimension -1 and includes no higher simplices, facilitating inductive constructions in algebraic topology. This role underscores ∅ as the initial object in geometric decompositions, such as the absence of 0-simplices in void structures.

Category Theory and Algebra

In category theory, the empty set ∅\emptyset serves as a foundational example of an initial object, extending its properties from the to broader algebraic and categorical structures. In the , ∅\emptyset is initial because there exists a unique function from ∅\emptyset to any set XX, namely the empty function. This notion generalizes to other categories where structures analogous to ∅\emptyset—such as trivial or zero objects—play the role of initial objects, ensuring unique morphisms to every other object in the . In the category of groups Grp\mathbf{Grp}, the trivial group {e}\{e\} (with ee the identity) corresponds to the empty set in the sense that it is the initial object, as there is a unique group homomorphism from {e}\{e\} to any group GG, sending ee to the identity of GG. Similarly, in the category of rngs Rng\mathbf{Rng} (rings without multiplicative identity), the zero ring (with a single element $0wherewhere0+0=0andand0 \cdot 0=0)istheinitialobject,admittingauniquernghomomorphismtoanyrng) is the initial object, admitting a unique rng homomorphism to any rng R, which maps &#36;0 to 0R0_R. These examples illustrate how the "emptiness" of ∅\emptyset manifests as minimal algebraic structures that initiate homomorphisms universally. The empty set also relates to free constructions in , where the on the empty set of generators yields the algebra in the corresponding variety. For instance, the free monoid on the empty set is the trivial monoid (singleton with identity), which is in the category of s Mon\mathbf{Mon}, as it generates unique monoid homomorphisms to any monoid by mapping the identity to the target's identity. This pattern holds across algebraic categories: the on no generators is the , in Grp\mathbf{Grp}; the free rng on no generators is the zero rng, initial in Rng\mathbf{Rng}. Such free structures on ∅\emptyset thus coincide with the objects, providing a generative perspective on minimality. In , the empty space (the with underlying set ∅\emptyset) acts as the initial object in the homotopy category of topological spaces Ho(Top)\mathbf{Ho}(\mathbf{Top}), where morphisms are classes of continuous maps. There is a unique class from the empty space to any space YY, corresponding to the empty map, preserving the initiality of ∅\emptyset under homotopy equivalence. This underscores the empty set's role in capturing "nothingness" as a starting point even in geometric and homotopical abstractions. However, the empty set's analogue is not always initial across all algebraic categories. For example, the category of fields Field\mathbf{Field} has no object, as no field admits a unique field to every other field—homomorphisms between fields of different characteristics are impossible, and even within the same characteristic, no universal source exists. This limitation highlights that while ∅\emptyset initializes many categories, structural constraints like no zero divisors in fields prevent a direct counterpart.

Analysis and Measure Theory

In measure theory, the empty set is always measurable, and its is defined to be zero, μ(∅)=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0. This property follows directly from the axioms of measure, where the measure of the empty set is required to be zero to ensure consistency with the additivity over s; for instance, since ∅\emptyset is the of itself and itself, μ(∅)=μ(∅)+μ(∅)\mu(\emptyset) = \mu(\emptyset) + \mu(\emptyset) implies μ(∅)=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0. The additivity of the Lebesgue measure further reinforces this, as the empty set contributes nothing to the measure of any union, allowing it to serve as the in the sigma-algebra of measurable sets. The role of the empty set extends to integration in real analysis. For any integrable function ff, the Lebesgue integral over the empty set is zero: ∫∅f dμ=0\int_{\emptyset} f \, d\mu = 0. This result holds because the integral over a set of measure zero, such as ∅\emptyset, is the integral of the zero function almost everywhere, and the Lebesgue integral of the zero function is zero by definition. This property ensures that integrals remain well-defined and finite even when the domain of integration is empty, avoiding pathological behaviors in limits or sums that might otherwise involve undefined operations. In , which builds on measure theory with the normalized to total measure one, the empty event—the event consisting of no outcomes—has probability zero: P(∅)=0P(\emptyset) = 0. This follows from the axioms of probability, where the empty set is disjoint from any event AA, so P(A)=P(A∪∅)=P(A)+P(∅)P(A) = P(A \cup \emptyset) = P(A) + P(\emptyset), implying P(∅)=0P(\emptyset) = 0. Consequently, the empty event represents an impossible occurrence, providing a foundational null case for probability spaces. The empty set also plays a stabilizing role in analysis involving the extended real numbers, where expressions like −∞+∞-\infty + \infty are left undefined. By convention in the extended reals, the supremum of ∅\emptyset is −∞-\infty and the infimum is +∞+\infty, which allows limits and extrema over potentially empty sets to be handled uniformly without introducing indeterminate forms in applications such as optimization or convergence theorems. This convention ensures that analytic constructions, like those in measure-theoretic limits, remain consistent even when no elements are present.

Historical and Philosophical Aspects

Historical Development

The concept of the empty set, denoting a collection containing no elements, emerged gradually in the history of mathematics, with roots in the treatment of nothingness and voids. In ancient Greek mathematics, such as Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BC), there was no explicit recognition of an empty collection or zero, as Greek philosophy generally rejected the idea of void or non-being, leading to a mathematics focused on positive quantities and filled spaces. Similarly, the Indian Sulba Sutras (c. 800–200 BC), which detail geometric constructions for Vedic altars, emphasize practical measurements and approximations but offer no direct treatment of emptiness, though later Indian developments of shunya (void or zero) in philosophical and numerical contexts foreshadowed ideas of absence. The 19th century marked the first formal introductions of the empty set in logical and set-theoretic contexts. George Boole, in his 1847 work The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, incorporated the "empty class" or "nothing" as the complement of the universe of discourse, representing a class with no members and assigning it the symbol 0 in his algebraic logic of classes. Giuseppe Peano, in his 1889 pamphlet Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita, used the symbol Λ to denote the null class in his axiomatization of arithmetic, though this notation created ambiguities by overlapping with symbols for falsehood in logical expressions. Georg Cantor advanced the concept significantly in the 1880s through his theory of transfinite numbers and point sets; in his 1880 paper "Über unendliche, lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten, V," he denoted the absence of points with the letter O, treating the empty collection as a valid set with cardinality zero in his hierarchy of infinities. In the , the empty set gained axiomatic prominence in foundational systems. Ernst Zermelo's 1908 paper "Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I" provided the first axiomatic , where the existence of the empty set follows as a from the of separation applied to any set with the contradictory property (e.g., the where no element satisfies x ≠ x), ensuring its role as a building block for all sets. , in his 1918 monograph Das Kontinuum: Kritische Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Analysis, formalized aspects of analysis using predicative methods inspired by Poincaré and Russell, incorporating the empty set as the foundational null domain from which constructive sequences of sets are built to avoid impredicative definitions. Later, the collective work of the Bourbaki group, beginning in with their , emphasized a structuralist perspective on , positioning the empty set as the unique initial object in the —defined rigorously as the set y such that ∀x (x ∉ y)—central to their axiomatic treatment of structures like groups, topologies, and algebras.

Philosophical Debates

The ontological status of the has been a point of contention in , particularly regarding whether it truly "exists" as a set or merely subsists in some abstract sense. , in his early work, argued that the null class—the class with no members—does not in the sense of having instances, but it subsists as a formal structure necessary for logical consistency. This distinction allows the empty set to function mathematically without committing to the existence of nonexistent objects, avoiding paradoxes like those in where nonexistents are treated as having being. Critics, however, question whether such subsistence amounts to a watered-down form of , rendering the empty set an ontological rather than a robust entity. Epistemologically, the empty set raises issues with vacuous truths, statements that hold true solely because their subject is empty, such as "all elements of the empty set are even numbers." These truths challenge intuitive understanding, as they seem to assert properties over nothing, yet they are logically valid under classical semantics where over an empty domain yields truth. Philosophers whether such vacuity undermines epistemic warrant, with some arguing it reflects a mismatch between formal logic and human cognition, potentially leading to over-acceptance of counterintuitive claims. Others defend vacuous truths as essential for preserving deductive closure in , emphasizing that must yield to rigorous proof. In , L.E.J. Brouwer's constructive accommodates the empty set by defining it as the with no realizable elements, integrating it without violating constructivist principles that require mathematical entities to be mentally constructible through finite processes. However, later intuitionist G.F.C. Griss proposed a stricter "negationless" that rejected the empty set, viewing it as incompatible with the absence of and the need for inhabited domains. Mereology, the theory of part-whole relations, contrasts the empty set with pure absence by debating the inclusion of a "null individual"—an that is a part of everything yet overlaps with substantial. Proponents of classical often reject such a null item to avoid trivializing the domain into a single element, preferring absence as a non-entity rather than an empty fusion of parts. This highlights tensions between set-theoretic emptiness, which posits a structured void, and mereological nothingness, which denies any such structure to prevent ontological inflation.

References

  1. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/EmptySet.html
  2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/#2.1
  3. https://iep.utm.edu/set-theo/#SH3a
  4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/#3
  5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/#4
  6. https://iep.utm.edu/set-theo/#H3
  7. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/empty+set
  8. http://people.whitman.edu/~guichard/260/halmos__naive_set_theory.pdf
  9. https://www.siue.edu/~jloreau/courses/math-223/notes/sec-set-basics.html
  10. http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15268-slashed-zero.pdf
  11. https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/2512/how-did-mathematicians-notate-the-empty-set-before-varnothing
  12. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6130374/empty-set-literal
  13. https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/28493/nothing-varnothing-and-emptyset
  14. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/basic-set-theory.html
  16. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FiniteSet.html
  17. https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2011/REUPapers/Lian.pdf
  18. https://www.math.cmu.edu/~mradclif/teaching/127S19/Notes/Set%20Theory.pdf
  19. https://mfleck.cs.illinois.edu/building-blocks/version-1.3/sets.pdf
  20. https://courses.grainger.illinois.edu/cs173/fa2010/Lectures/set-theory.pdf
  21. https://people.cs.pitt.edu/~milos/courses/cs441/lectures/Class7.pdf
  22. https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~pemantle/DRP/04-transfinite.pdf
  23. https://planetmath.org/cartesianproduct
  24. https://planetmath.org/functionsfromemptyset
  25. https://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/relation/definition/cp_gen/index.html
  26. https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/002B
  27. https://people.math.ethz.ch/~halorenz/4students/LogikGT/Ch13.pdf
  28. https://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/set/ZFC.html
  29. https://eudml.org/doc/149573
  30. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/terminal+object
  31. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1355472/how-can-i-define-a-topology-on-the-empty-set
  32. https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/MISC/Topology.pdf
  33. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3825597/is-the-empty-set-compact-in-mathbb-r
  34. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1630966/what-does-it-mean-for-the-empty-set-to-be-connected-and-totally-disconnected
  35. https://www.math.purdue.edu/~colleend/lecture15_notes.pdf
  36. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/tamaldey/course/531/Simplicial-complex1.pdf
  37. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/meshpapers/edels/L-06.pdf
  38. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4772469/how-free-and-initial-algebras-relate
  39. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/36848/what-category-without-initial-object-do-you-care-about
  40. https://users.math.msu.edu/users/banelson/files/lebesgue_integral.pdf
  41. https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~hunter/measure_theory/measure_notes_ch2.pdf
  42. https://www.statlect.com/glossary/impossible-event
  43. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/432295/infimum-and-supremum-of-the-empty-set
  44. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Projects/Pearce/chapter-5/
  45. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zermelo-set-theory/
  46. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weyl/
  47. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/
  48. https://philpapers.org/rec/BIROTO-2
  49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04436-4
  50. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-truth/
  51. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionistic-logic-development/
  52. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.