In “An element of a set can never be a subset of itself”, what does ‘itself’ stand for?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}








11












$begingroup$


I have just begun learning about sets. My first language isn't English. I'm in high school.



Here's an example problem I found in my textbook:




Example 11: Let $A, B$ and $C$ be three sets. If $A∈B$ and
$B⊂C$, is it true that $A⊂C$? If not, give an example.



Solution: No. Let $A={1}, B={{1}, 2}$ and $C={{1}, 2, 3}$. Here $A∈B$ as $A={1}$ and $B⊂C$. But $A⊄C$ as $1∈A$ and $1∉C$.



Note that an element of a set can never be a subset of itself.




The link to the textbook's chapter.



What does “itself” stand for here? Does it mean an element of a set can't be it's own (the element's) subset?



Or does that mean an element cannot be both an element and a subset of a set at the same time?



If $P={p}, Q={{p}, q}$, and $R={{p}, q, r}$, we can say that $P∈Q$. But, can we say that both $Q∈R$ and $Q⊂R$ are true? Is it so that $Q$ cannot be both an element and a subset of $R$? Is ${{p}, q, r}$ not the same as ${p, q, r}$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Both are sensible... and both are false! The author is saying something that either makes no sense, or else is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    May 27 at 4:03






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I bet that the author here was thinking of the statement "A set cannot be a member of itself" (which follows, in ZFC, from the axiom of foundation) and got confused between "member" and "subset."
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    May 27 at 4:19








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The only thing this makes me think of is the classical Barber's paradox by Bertrand Russel. "The barber shaves everyone who don't shave themselves". So does the barber shave himself? To avoid allowing self references like this which create logical paradoxes.
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    May 27 at 13:52








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MiloBrandt: Unfortunately, that's not the reason. I know many textbooks that make all kinds of false or even nonsensical claims. The one quoted here is yet another to add to the list. Rishi, it is probably best to avoid that textbook if you want to study proper mathematics.
    $endgroup$
    – user21820
    May 27 at 13:53










  • $begingroup$
    Note that, if $C = { 1, {1}, 2,3 }$ then $A in C$, $A subset C$, and $A subseteq A$.
    $endgroup$
    – steven gregory
    May 27 at 17:07




















11












$begingroup$


I have just begun learning about sets. My first language isn't English. I'm in high school.



Here's an example problem I found in my textbook:




Example 11: Let $A, B$ and $C$ be three sets. If $A∈B$ and
$B⊂C$, is it true that $A⊂C$? If not, give an example.



Solution: No. Let $A={1}, B={{1}, 2}$ and $C={{1}, 2, 3}$. Here $A∈B$ as $A={1}$ and $B⊂C$. But $A⊄C$ as $1∈A$ and $1∉C$.



Note that an element of a set can never be a subset of itself.




The link to the textbook's chapter.



What does “itself” stand for here? Does it mean an element of a set can't be it's own (the element's) subset?



Or does that mean an element cannot be both an element and a subset of a set at the same time?



If $P={p}, Q={{p}, q}$, and $R={{p}, q, r}$, we can say that $P∈Q$. But, can we say that both $Q∈R$ and $Q⊂R$ are true? Is it so that $Q$ cannot be both an element and a subset of $R$? Is ${{p}, q, r}$ not the same as ${p, q, r}$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Both are sensible... and both are false! The author is saying something that either makes no sense, or else is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    May 27 at 4:03






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I bet that the author here was thinking of the statement "A set cannot be a member of itself" (which follows, in ZFC, from the axiom of foundation) and got confused between "member" and "subset."
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    May 27 at 4:19








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The only thing this makes me think of is the classical Barber's paradox by Bertrand Russel. "The barber shaves everyone who don't shave themselves". So does the barber shave himself? To avoid allowing self references like this which create logical paradoxes.
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    May 27 at 13:52








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MiloBrandt: Unfortunately, that's not the reason. I know many textbooks that make all kinds of false or even nonsensical claims. The one quoted here is yet another to add to the list. Rishi, it is probably best to avoid that textbook if you want to study proper mathematics.
    $endgroup$
    – user21820
    May 27 at 13:53










  • $begingroup$
    Note that, if $C = { 1, {1}, 2,3 }$ then $A in C$, $A subset C$, and $A subseteq A$.
    $endgroup$
    – steven gregory
    May 27 at 17:07
















11












11








11


2



$begingroup$


I have just begun learning about sets. My first language isn't English. I'm in high school.



Here's an example problem I found in my textbook:




Example 11: Let $A, B$ and $C$ be three sets. If $A∈B$ and
$B⊂C$, is it true that $A⊂C$? If not, give an example.



Solution: No. Let $A={1}, B={{1}, 2}$ and $C={{1}, 2, 3}$. Here $A∈B$ as $A={1}$ and $B⊂C$. But $A⊄C$ as $1∈A$ and $1∉C$.



Note that an element of a set can never be a subset of itself.




The link to the textbook's chapter.



What does “itself” stand for here? Does it mean an element of a set can't be it's own (the element's) subset?



Or does that mean an element cannot be both an element and a subset of a set at the same time?



If $P={p}, Q={{p}, q}$, and $R={{p}, q, r}$, we can say that $P∈Q$. But, can we say that both $Q∈R$ and $Q⊂R$ are true? Is it so that $Q$ cannot be both an element and a subset of $R$? Is ${{p}, q, r}$ not the same as ${p, q, r}$?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have just begun learning about sets. My first language isn't English. I'm in high school.



Here's an example problem I found in my textbook:




Example 11: Let $A, B$ and $C$ be three sets. If $A∈B$ and
$B⊂C$, is it true that $A⊂C$? If not, give an example.



Solution: No. Let $A={1}, B={{1}, 2}$ and $C={{1}, 2, 3}$. Here $A∈B$ as $A={1}$ and $B⊂C$. But $A⊄C$ as $1∈A$ and $1∉C$.



Note that an element of a set can never be a subset of itself.




The link to the textbook's chapter.



What does “itself” stand for here? Does it mean an element of a set can't be it's own (the element's) subset?



Or does that mean an element cannot be both an element and a subset of a set at the same time?



If $P={p}, Q={{p}, q}$, and $R={{p}, q, r}$, we can say that $P∈Q$. But, can we say that both $Q∈R$ and $Q⊂R$ are true? Is it so that $Q$ cannot be both an element and a subset of $R$? Is ${{p}, q, r}$ not the same as ${p, q, r}$?







elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited May 27 at 15:45







Rishi Raj

















asked May 27 at 3:54









Rishi RajRishi Raj

715 bronze badges




715 bronze badges











  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Both are sensible... and both are false! The author is saying something that either makes no sense, or else is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    May 27 at 4:03






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I bet that the author here was thinking of the statement "A set cannot be a member of itself" (which follows, in ZFC, from the axiom of foundation) and got confused between "member" and "subset."
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    May 27 at 4:19








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The only thing this makes me think of is the classical Barber's paradox by Bertrand Russel. "The barber shaves everyone who don't shave themselves". So does the barber shave himself? To avoid allowing self references like this which create logical paradoxes.
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    May 27 at 13:52








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MiloBrandt: Unfortunately, that's not the reason. I know many textbooks that make all kinds of false or even nonsensical claims. The one quoted here is yet another to add to the list. Rishi, it is probably best to avoid that textbook if you want to study proper mathematics.
    $endgroup$
    – user21820
    May 27 at 13:53










  • $begingroup$
    Note that, if $C = { 1, {1}, 2,3 }$ then $A in C$, $A subset C$, and $A subseteq A$.
    $endgroup$
    – steven gregory
    May 27 at 17:07
















  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Both are sensible... and both are false! The author is saying something that either makes no sense, or else is wrong.
    $endgroup$
    – Arturo Magidin
    May 27 at 4:03






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I bet that the author here was thinking of the statement "A set cannot be a member of itself" (which follows, in ZFC, from the axiom of foundation) and got confused between "member" and "subset."
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    May 27 at 4:19








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The only thing this makes me think of is the classical Barber's paradox by Bertrand Russel. "The barber shaves everyone who don't shave themselves". So does the barber shave himself? To avoid allowing self references like this which create logical paradoxes.
    $endgroup$
    – mathreadler
    May 27 at 13:52








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MiloBrandt: Unfortunately, that's not the reason. I know many textbooks that make all kinds of false or even nonsensical claims. The one quoted here is yet another to add to the list. Rishi, it is probably best to avoid that textbook if you want to study proper mathematics.
    $endgroup$
    – user21820
    May 27 at 13:53










  • $begingroup$
    Note that, if $C = { 1, {1}, 2,3 }$ then $A in C$, $A subset C$, and $A subseteq A$.
    $endgroup$
    – steven gregory
    May 27 at 17:07










3




3




$begingroup$
Both are sensible... and both are false! The author is saying something that either makes no sense, or else is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
May 27 at 4:03




$begingroup$
Both are sensible... and both are false! The author is saying something that either makes no sense, or else is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Arturo Magidin
May 27 at 4:03




4




4




$begingroup$
I bet that the author here was thinking of the statement "A set cannot be a member of itself" (which follows, in ZFC, from the axiom of foundation) and got confused between "member" and "subset."
$endgroup$
– Milo Brandt
May 27 at 4:19






$begingroup$
I bet that the author here was thinking of the statement "A set cannot be a member of itself" (which follows, in ZFC, from the axiom of foundation) and got confused between "member" and "subset."
$endgroup$
– Milo Brandt
May 27 at 4:19






1




1




$begingroup$
The only thing this makes me think of is the classical Barber's paradox by Bertrand Russel. "The barber shaves everyone who don't shave themselves". So does the barber shave himself? To avoid allowing self references like this which create logical paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
May 27 at 13:52






$begingroup$
The only thing this makes me think of is the classical Barber's paradox by Bertrand Russel. "The barber shaves everyone who don't shave themselves". So does the barber shave himself? To avoid allowing self references like this which create logical paradoxes.
$endgroup$
– mathreadler
May 27 at 13:52






1




1




$begingroup$
@MiloBrandt: Unfortunately, that's not the reason. I know many textbooks that make all kinds of false or even nonsensical claims. The one quoted here is yet another to add to the list. Rishi, it is probably best to avoid that textbook if you want to study proper mathematics.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 27 at 13:53




$begingroup$
@MiloBrandt: Unfortunately, that's not the reason. I know many textbooks that make all kinds of false or even nonsensical claims. The one quoted here is yet another to add to the list. Rishi, it is probably best to avoid that textbook if you want to study proper mathematics.
$endgroup$
– user21820
May 27 at 13:53












$begingroup$
Note that, if $C = { 1, {1}, 2,3 }$ then $A in C$, $A subset C$, and $A subseteq A$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
May 27 at 17:07






$begingroup$
Note that, if $C = { 1, {1}, 2,3 }$ then $A in C$, $A subset C$, and $A subseteq A$.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
May 27 at 17:07












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















19














$begingroup$

Both interpretations are sensible. Unfortunately, both interpretations are false statements! That comment is just misguided. (It's not your fault; it's the author's fault)



For instance: your first interpretation is:




If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $x$.




But that is false. In Set Theory, sets can be elements of other sets, and every set is a subset of itself. So $x$ can certainly be a subset of itself. For example, if $A={{1},{2}}$, then $x={1}$ is an element of $A$, and $x$ is a subset of itself.



Your second interpretation is:




If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $A$.




But that is also false. In fact, there is a whole class of sets, known as "transitive set", with the property that every element is also a subset. For instance, the set $A={varnothing,{varnothing}}$, whose elements are (i) the empty set and (ii) the set whose only element is the empty set; has the property that each of its elements is, in addition to being an element of $A$, also a subset of $A$.



In short: I'm not sure what the author meant to say with that comment, but both natural interpretations of it are false.





What is true is that, in general, if $A$ is a set and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then you cannot say, from these facts alone, whether $x$ is a subset of $A$ or not; and if your set theory allows for objects that are not sets ("ur-elements"), then you may not know whether $x$ is a subset of itself or not.



It is also true that in many set theories, one cannot have a set be an element of itself: that is, you can never have $Ain A$. (But there are set theories where this is valid, however...)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$























    2














    $begingroup$

    It helps to think of the braces ${}$ as being quite literal. So if $P={p}$, $Q={{p},q}$, and $R={{p},q,r}$, then:




    • When we write $Q={{p},q}$, it means that the set $Q$ contains the two elements ${p}$ and $q$. In symbols, ${p}in Q$ and $qin Q$. Since $P={p}$, we can interchange those two things, so we can also write $Pin Q$.

    • The statement "$Psubset Q$" means "any element of $P$ is an element of $Q$." Well, $p$ is an element of $P$, but not of $Q$.

    • The set $R$ contains ${p}$, $q$, and $r$, and $Q$ contains ${p}$ and $q$. Thus, $Qsubset R$. However, $Qnotin R$, because $R$ does not contain the element $Q={{p},q}$.


    As someone pointed out, it is not true that if $xin S$, then $x$ is not a subset of $S$, nor the similar statement that if $xsubset S$, then $xnotin S$. The set ${1,{1}}$ gives a counterexample to both. The only true statement I can think of here is that a set $S$ is never an element in itself. We can never have $Sin S$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });















      draft saved

      draft discarded
















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3241082%2fin-an-element-of-a-set-can-never-be-a-subset-of-itself-what-does-itself-sta%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      19














      $begingroup$

      Both interpretations are sensible. Unfortunately, both interpretations are false statements! That comment is just misguided. (It's not your fault; it's the author's fault)



      For instance: your first interpretation is:




      If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $x$.




      But that is false. In Set Theory, sets can be elements of other sets, and every set is a subset of itself. So $x$ can certainly be a subset of itself. For example, if $A={{1},{2}}$, then $x={1}$ is an element of $A$, and $x$ is a subset of itself.



      Your second interpretation is:




      If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $A$.




      But that is also false. In fact, there is a whole class of sets, known as "transitive set", with the property that every element is also a subset. For instance, the set $A={varnothing,{varnothing}}$, whose elements are (i) the empty set and (ii) the set whose only element is the empty set; has the property that each of its elements is, in addition to being an element of $A$, also a subset of $A$.



      In short: I'm not sure what the author meant to say with that comment, but both natural interpretations of it are false.





      What is true is that, in general, if $A$ is a set and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then you cannot say, from these facts alone, whether $x$ is a subset of $A$ or not; and if your set theory allows for objects that are not sets ("ur-elements"), then you may not know whether $x$ is a subset of itself or not.



      It is also true that in many set theories, one cannot have a set be an element of itself: that is, you can never have $Ain A$. (But there are set theories where this is valid, however...)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$




















        19














        $begingroup$

        Both interpretations are sensible. Unfortunately, both interpretations are false statements! That comment is just misguided. (It's not your fault; it's the author's fault)



        For instance: your first interpretation is:




        If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $x$.




        But that is false. In Set Theory, sets can be elements of other sets, and every set is a subset of itself. So $x$ can certainly be a subset of itself. For example, if $A={{1},{2}}$, then $x={1}$ is an element of $A$, and $x$ is a subset of itself.



        Your second interpretation is:




        If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $A$.




        But that is also false. In fact, there is a whole class of sets, known as "transitive set", with the property that every element is also a subset. For instance, the set $A={varnothing,{varnothing}}$, whose elements are (i) the empty set and (ii) the set whose only element is the empty set; has the property that each of its elements is, in addition to being an element of $A$, also a subset of $A$.



        In short: I'm not sure what the author meant to say with that comment, but both natural interpretations of it are false.





        What is true is that, in general, if $A$ is a set and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then you cannot say, from these facts alone, whether $x$ is a subset of $A$ or not; and if your set theory allows for objects that are not sets ("ur-elements"), then you may not know whether $x$ is a subset of itself or not.



        It is also true that in many set theories, one cannot have a set be an element of itself: that is, you can never have $Ain A$. (But there are set theories where this is valid, however...)






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          19














          19










          19







          $begingroup$

          Both interpretations are sensible. Unfortunately, both interpretations are false statements! That comment is just misguided. (It's not your fault; it's the author's fault)



          For instance: your first interpretation is:




          If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $x$.




          But that is false. In Set Theory, sets can be elements of other sets, and every set is a subset of itself. So $x$ can certainly be a subset of itself. For example, if $A={{1},{2}}$, then $x={1}$ is an element of $A$, and $x$ is a subset of itself.



          Your second interpretation is:




          If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $A$.




          But that is also false. In fact, there is a whole class of sets, known as "transitive set", with the property that every element is also a subset. For instance, the set $A={varnothing,{varnothing}}$, whose elements are (i) the empty set and (ii) the set whose only element is the empty set; has the property that each of its elements is, in addition to being an element of $A$, also a subset of $A$.



          In short: I'm not sure what the author meant to say with that comment, but both natural interpretations of it are false.





          What is true is that, in general, if $A$ is a set and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then you cannot say, from these facts alone, whether $x$ is a subset of $A$ or not; and if your set theory allows for objects that are not sets ("ur-elements"), then you may not know whether $x$ is a subset of itself or not.



          It is also true that in many set theories, one cannot have a set be an element of itself: that is, you can never have $Ain A$. (But there are set theories where this is valid, however...)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Both interpretations are sensible. Unfortunately, both interpretations are false statements! That comment is just misguided. (It's not your fault; it's the author's fault)



          For instance: your first interpretation is:




          If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $x$.




          But that is false. In Set Theory, sets can be elements of other sets, and every set is a subset of itself. So $x$ can certainly be a subset of itself. For example, if $A={{1},{2}}$, then $x={1}$ is an element of $A$, and $x$ is a subset of itself.



          Your second interpretation is:




          If $A$ is a set, and $xin A$, then $x$ cannot be a subset of $A$.




          But that is also false. In fact, there is a whole class of sets, known as "transitive set", with the property that every element is also a subset. For instance, the set $A={varnothing,{varnothing}}$, whose elements are (i) the empty set and (ii) the set whose only element is the empty set; has the property that each of its elements is, in addition to being an element of $A$, also a subset of $A$.



          In short: I'm not sure what the author meant to say with that comment, but both natural interpretations of it are false.





          What is true is that, in general, if $A$ is a set and $xin A$ is an element of $A$, then you cannot say, from these facts alone, whether $x$ is a subset of $A$ or not; and if your set theory allows for objects that are not sets ("ur-elements"), then you may not know whether $x$ is a subset of itself or not.



          It is also true that in many set theories, one cannot have a set be an element of itself: that is, you can never have $Ain A$. (But there are set theories where this is valid, however...)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited May 27 at 4:29

























          answered May 27 at 4:03









          Arturo MagidinArturo Magidin

          278k34 gold badges608 silver badges944 bronze badges




          278k34 gold badges608 silver badges944 bronze badges




























              2














              $begingroup$

              It helps to think of the braces ${}$ as being quite literal. So if $P={p}$, $Q={{p},q}$, and $R={{p},q,r}$, then:




              • When we write $Q={{p},q}$, it means that the set $Q$ contains the two elements ${p}$ and $q$. In symbols, ${p}in Q$ and $qin Q$. Since $P={p}$, we can interchange those two things, so we can also write $Pin Q$.

              • The statement "$Psubset Q$" means "any element of $P$ is an element of $Q$." Well, $p$ is an element of $P$, but not of $Q$.

              • The set $R$ contains ${p}$, $q$, and $r$, and $Q$ contains ${p}$ and $q$. Thus, $Qsubset R$. However, $Qnotin R$, because $R$ does not contain the element $Q={{p},q}$.


              As someone pointed out, it is not true that if $xin S$, then $x$ is not a subset of $S$, nor the similar statement that if $xsubset S$, then $xnotin S$. The set ${1,{1}}$ gives a counterexample to both. The only true statement I can think of here is that a set $S$ is never an element in itself. We can never have $Sin S$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$




















                2














                $begingroup$

                It helps to think of the braces ${}$ as being quite literal. So if $P={p}$, $Q={{p},q}$, and $R={{p},q,r}$, then:




                • When we write $Q={{p},q}$, it means that the set $Q$ contains the two elements ${p}$ and $q$. In symbols, ${p}in Q$ and $qin Q$. Since $P={p}$, we can interchange those two things, so we can also write $Pin Q$.

                • The statement "$Psubset Q$" means "any element of $P$ is an element of $Q$." Well, $p$ is an element of $P$, but not of $Q$.

                • The set $R$ contains ${p}$, $q$, and $r$, and $Q$ contains ${p}$ and $q$. Thus, $Qsubset R$. However, $Qnotin R$, because $R$ does not contain the element $Q={{p},q}$.


                As someone pointed out, it is not true that if $xin S$, then $x$ is not a subset of $S$, nor the similar statement that if $xsubset S$, then $xnotin S$. The set ${1,{1}}$ gives a counterexample to both. The only true statement I can think of here is that a set $S$ is never an element in itself. We can never have $Sin S$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  2














                  2










                  2







                  $begingroup$

                  It helps to think of the braces ${}$ as being quite literal. So if $P={p}$, $Q={{p},q}$, and $R={{p},q,r}$, then:




                  • When we write $Q={{p},q}$, it means that the set $Q$ contains the two elements ${p}$ and $q$. In symbols, ${p}in Q$ and $qin Q$. Since $P={p}$, we can interchange those two things, so we can also write $Pin Q$.

                  • The statement "$Psubset Q$" means "any element of $P$ is an element of $Q$." Well, $p$ is an element of $P$, but not of $Q$.

                  • The set $R$ contains ${p}$, $q$, and $r$, and $Q$ contains ${p}$ and $q$. Thus, $Qsubset R$. However, $Qnotin R$, because $R$ does not contain the element $Q={{p},q}$.


                  As someone pointed out, it is not true that if $xin S$, then $x$ is not a subset of $S$, nor the similar statement that if $xsubset S$, then $xnotin S$. The set ${1,{1}}$ gives a counterexample to both. The only true statement I can think of here is that a set $S$ is never an element in itself. We can never have $Sin S$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  It helps to think of the braces ${}$ as being quite literal. So if $P={p}$, $Q={{p},q}$, and $R={{p},q,r}$, then:




                  • When we write $Q={{p},q}$, it means that the set $Q$ contains the two elements ${p}$ and $q$. In symbols, ${p}in Q$ and $qin Q$. Since $P={p}$, we can interchange those two things, so we can also write $Pin Q$.

                  • The statement "$Psubset Q$" means "any element of $P$ is an element of $Q$." Well, $p$ is an element of $P$, but not of $Q$.

                  • The set $R$ contains ${p}$, $q$, and $r$, and $Q$ contains ${p}$ and $q$. Thus, $Qsubset R$. However, $Qnotin R$, because $R$ does not contain the element $Q={{p},q}$.


                  As someone pointed out, it is not true that if $xin S$, then $x$ is not a subset of $S$, nor the similar statement that if $xsubset S$, then $xnotin S$. The set ${1,{1}}$ gives a counterexample to both. The only true statement I can think of here is that a set $S$ is never an element in itself. We can never have $Sin S$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered May 27 at 4:15









                  Elliot GElliot G

                  11.1k2 gold badges19 silver badges46 bronze badges




                  11.1k2 gold badges19 silver badges46 bronze badges


































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded



















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3241082%2fin-an-element-of-a-set-can-never-be-a-subset-of-itself-what-does-itself-sta%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029