more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 13199

[filed under theme 4. Formal Logic / F. Set Theory ST / 3. Types of Set / b. Empty (Null) Set ]

Full Idea

It might be thought at first that the empty set would be a rather useless or even frivolous set to mention, but from the empty set by various set-theoretic operations a surprising array of sets will be constructed.

Gist of Idea

The empty set may look pointless, but many sets can be constructed from it

Source

Herbert B. Enderton (Elements of Set Theory [1977], 1:02)

Book Ref

Enderton,Herbert B.: 'Elements of Set Theory' [Posts + Telecoms 2006], p.2


A Reaction

This nicely sums up the ontological commitments of mathematics - that we will accept absolutely anything, as long as we can have some fun with it. Sets are an abstraction from reality, and the empty set is the very idea of that abstraction.


The 30 ideas with the same theme [status of a set having no members]:

A class is an aggregate of objects; if you destroy them, you destroy the class; there is no empty class [Frege]
The null set is only defensible if it is the extension of an empty concept [Frege, by Burge]
It is because a concept can be empty that there is such a thing as the empty class [Frege, by Dummett]
The null set is indefensible, because it collects nothing [Frege, by Burge]
The null class is the class with all the non-existents as its members [MacColl, by Lackey]
The null class is a fiction [Russell]
For 'there is a class with no members' we don't need the null set as truthmaker [Armstrong]
Note that {Φ} =/= Φ, because Φ ∈ {Φ} but Φ ∉ Φ [Enderton]
The empty set may look pointless, but many sets can be constructed from it [Enderton]
We can accept the null set, but not a null class, a class lacking members [Lewis]
The null set plays the role of last resort, for class abstracts and for existence [Lewis]
The null set is not a little speck of sheer nothingness, a black hole in Reality [Lewis]
We can accept the null set, but there is no null class of anything [Lewis]
There are four main reasons for asserting that there is an empty set [Lewis]
We needn't accept this speck of nothingness, this black hole in the fabric of Reality! [Lewis]
Without the empty set we could not form a∩b without checking that a and b meet [Hart,WD]
The null set was doubted, because numbering seemed to require 'units' [Tait]
We only know relational facts about the empty set, but nothing intrinsic [Chihara]
In simple type theory there is a hierarchy of null sets [Chihara]
The null set is a structural position which has no other position in membership relation [Chihara]
Realists about sets say there exists a null set in the real world, with no members [Chihara]
I don't believe in the empty set, because (lacking members) it lacks identity-conditions [Lowe]
Usually the only reason given for accepting the empty set is convenience [Potter]
Maybe we can treat the empty set symbol as just meaning an empty term [Oliver/Smiley]
The empty set is usually derived from Separation, but it also seems to need Infinity [Oliver/Smiley]
The empty set is something, not nothing! [Oliver/Smiley]
We don't need the empty set to express non-existence, as there are other ways to do that [Oliver/Smiley]
Set theory makes a minimum ontological claim, that the empty set exists [Friend]
The empty set avoids having to take special precautions in case members vanish [Walicki]
The empty set is useful for defining sets by properties, when the members are not yet known [Walicki]