In an earlier post, I discussed the basic and most important aspects of Set theory, Functions and Real Number System. In the same, there was a significant discussion about the union and intersection of sets.

Restating the facts again, given a collection $ \mathcal{A}$ of sets, the union of the elements of $ \mathcal{A}$ is defined by

$ \displaystyle{\bigcup_{A \in \mathcal{A}}} A := {x : x \in A \textrm{ for at least one } A \in \mathcal{A} }$ .

The intersection of the elements of $ \mathcal{A}$ is defined by

$ \displaystyle{\bigcap_{A \in \mathcal{A}}} A := {x : x \in A \textrm{ for every } A \in \mathcal{A} }$ .

But what if the collection is empty? i.e., what if the collection contains no sets?

From the first day at Topology class in Gorakhpur University , it was the very first confusion which troubled many of classmates. Topology’s Professor was elaborating the finite intersection of sets in reference to topological space — and everyone in the classroom was enjoying it. To end of the lecture, as he wrote,

the intersection of members of empty collection equals to the universal set.

Which mathematically, Professor wrote $ \bigcap \emptyset = X$ where $ X$ is universal set. The quote was okay and significant but the mathematical notion of the same was confusing, as he represented an empty collection by “empty-set notation $ \emptyset$ ” . Professor easily asserted this to be an agreement among some mathematicians and even though the result is useful in some problems, he skipped a proper proof of it. [That’s really bad, Sir!]  At first instant, this problem lead me to a single result: $ \bigcap {\emptyset} = \emptyset$ , if $ \emptyset$ was usual null-set. But in the case, where $ \emptyset$ was an empty collection – I couldn’t reach to any result.

There came Munkres’s Topology book to the rescue. It’s second edition has a little note about the same on Chapter 1 page 12 .  He writes:

There is no problem with these definitions if one of the elements of $ \mathcal{A}$ happens to be the empty set. [In each such case of arbitrary union  and intersection the results is $ \emptyset$ .] But it is tricky to decide what (if anything) these definitions mean if we allow $ \mathcal{A}$ to be the empty collection. Applying the definitions literally, we see that  no element $ x$ satisfies the defining property for the union of the elements of $ \mathcal{A}$ . So it is reasonable to say that

$ \displaystyle{\bigcup_{A \in \mathcal{A}}} A := \emptyset$ if $ \mathcal{A}$ is empty.

On the other hand , every $ x$ satisfies (vacuously) the defining property for the intersection of the elements of $ \mathcal{A}$ . The question is, every $ x$ in what set? If one has a given large set $ X$ that is specified at the outset of the discussion to be one’s “universe of discourse”, and one considers only subsets of X throughout, it is reasonable to let

$ \displaystyle{\bigcap_{A \in \mathcal{A}}} A := X$ when $ \mathcal{A}$ is empty.

Not all Mathematicians follow this convention, however. …

 

So, according to Munkres (with some very good arguments), the intersection of elements of an empty collection of subsets of a set (say) $ E \subseteq X$ equals to the universal set $ X$ . In other words, nothing is everything. There must be any theoretical or logical proof of it! There must be.

Total
0
Shares


Feel free to ask questions, send feedback and even point out mistakes. Great conversations start with just a single word. How to write better comments?
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

You May Also Like

Do you multiply this way!

Before my college days I used to multiply this way. But as time passed, I learned new things. In a Hindi magazine named “Bhaskar Lakshya”, I read an article in which a columnist ( I can’t remember his name) suggested how to multiply in single line (row). That was a magic to me.  I found doing multiplications this way, very faster –…

Free Online Calculus Text Books

Once I listed books on Algebra and Related Mathematics in this article, Since then I was receiving emails for few more related articles. I have tried to list almost all freely available Calculus texts. Here we go: Elementary Calculus : An approach using infinitesimals by H. J. Keisler Multivariable Calculus by Jim Herod and George Cain Calculus by Gilbert Strang…

Social Networks for Math Majors

Math or Mathematics is not as difficult as it is thought to be. Mathematical Patterns, Structures, Geometry and its use in everyday life make it beautiful. ‘Math majors’ term generally include Math students, Math professors and researchers or Mathematicians. Internet has always been a tonic for learners and whole internet is supposed to be a social network, in which one…

Three Children, Two Friends and One Mathematical Puzzle

Two close friends, Robert and Thomas, met again after a gap of several years. Robert Said: I am now married and have three children. Thomas Said: That’s great! How old they are? Robert: Thomas! Guess it yourself with some clues provided by me. The product of the ages of my children is 36. Thomas: Hmm… Not so helpful clue. Can…

Four way valid expression

People really like to twist the numbers and digits bringing fun into life. For example, someone asks, “how much is two and two?” : the answer should be four according to basic (decimal based) arithmetic. But the same  with base three (in ternary number system) equals to 11. Two and Two also equals to Twenty Two. Similarly there are many ways you can…

Everywhere Continuous Non-differentiable Function

Weierstrass had drawn attention to the fact that there exist functions which are continuous for every value of $ x$ but do not possess a derivative for any value. We now consider the celebrated function given by Weierstrass to show this fact. It will be shown that if $ f(x)= \displaystyle{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} } b^n \cos (a^n \pi x) \ \ldots (1)…