2007-03-20 23:14:36 · 6 answers · asked by tarique h 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The question is deeper than you may realize and has major implications beyond the scope of this session.
For a bit of history, this is ONLY error that has been found in Aristotle's thoughts on logic (and in today's terminalogy-set theory).
In the late 1900s and early 2000s Bertrand Russell gave the definitive answer but that was after he had had a nervous breakdown trying to resolve the problem in toto.
He came to the conclusion that the null set had to be included and thus proved that "nothing" is actually something.
2007-03-21 02:16:46 · answer #1 · answered by scotishbob 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This comes by definition.
The definition of a subset is: Set A is a subset of Set B, if and only if All elements of A are also elements of B.
Now Empty Set is a set that has no elements. Thus for empty set E and for any set X it is TRUE that EVERY element of E(of which there are none) is an element of X.
Harder question is why should we have a concept of empty set at all. I mean we already have plenty of things that have no elements, namely things that are NOT sets, it is unclear where does this magical entity comes from that has no elements and is yet a set.
2007-03-21 07:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Null means void. Subset means "a set of whose elements is an element of an inclusive set". Given these two definitions, I am sure you can figure it out, and youhave your answer.
2007-03-21 00:08:17 · answer #3 · answered by michelebaruch 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From nothing there comes everything.
2007-03-20 23:16:47 · answer #4 · answered by kalpon777 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Same as: does unity includes nothingess?
2007-03-20 23:54:20 · answer #5 · answered by The Knowledge Server 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because everything in its core is nothing
2007-03-21 00:04:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋