2007-03-22 15:51:48 · 8 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
subset one of null is a large Hawaiian pizza with extra cheese.
subset two of null is the right testicle of every rooster found within a 3.71 mile radius of the 7/11 located 3.69 miles from the city center.
subset three of null is toenail clippings that were left on the couch exactly a forte night that were partially exposed by the penumbra of a solar eclipse.
2007-03-22 15:58:47 · answer #1 · answered by jkk k 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just by looking at the definition of a proper subset: if A is a proper subset of B, then A has to be a subset of B, and A must not equal to B. since a null set is equal to another null set, i am guessing that they are not proper subsets of each other.
2016-03-29 00:24:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a null subset is a subset of EVERY set, including itself. So a null set has only 1 subset, namely itself.
2007-03-22 19:45:51 · answer #3 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An infinite number of null sets.
2007-03-22 17:00:30 · answer #4 · answered by ox4a64 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Any measurable subset of a null set is itself a null set."
2007-03-22 18:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A logic using empty set as symbol for a definition for 'set' is the empty set, the null set may or may not be an empty set, but its contents are decidedly meaningless for particular purposes and is not the totality for infinite set. Another linguistic expression for this is 'any set that is irrelevant for you'.
2007-03-23 14:40:10 · answer #6 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All we can grasp is contained in the limit points.
2007-03-23 05:26:53 · answer #7 · answered by Alex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ten thousand things
2007-03-22 18:00:52 · answer #8 · answered by knappneedleman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋