Ø vs set {}:
Ø has no elements
whereas {} has the null set as an element; that is, say you are making power set of {}: Ø would be an element of the power set or in symbols, P({}): {Ø}
right? I feel these distinctions might come into play in certain problems I come across; they are confusing and I am looking for clarification
I ask because I do not think Ø = {}
When one doubts whether a given set is equal to "another" set, one can use the axiom of extentionnality ( the definition of set equality) according to which :
(set A = set B) IFF ( for all x, x belongs to A <--> x belongs to B) .
But using this axiom requires, in certain cases, some familiarity with the truth table of the " if...then" and of the " <--> " operator. One has to know that, when a set S is empty, the sentence " x belongs to S" being false, any conditional statement having the sentence " x belongs to S" as antecedent is " automatically" true ( "vacuously true" as some say pleasantly). And notice that a biconditionnal ( " <-->" ) is simply the conjunction of two " if ...then" statements.
Here if you plug the set Ø and the set { } in the formula of the axiom of extentionnality, you will see you will get a statement that is vacuously true ( in both directions). So your "two" sets pass the test of equality: they are, in fact, exactly the same set.
If you are not acquainted with the " if... then" or " iff" operator, rephrase the principle of extensionnality, and say that a set A and a set B are equal just in case :
(1) there is no object that belongs to A and that does not belong to B AND (2) there is no object that belongs to B and that does not belong to A.
So can you see an object that belongs to Ø and does not belong to { } ? and can you see an object that belongs to { } but does not belong to Ø ?
If you answered "no" to both questions, you know that : Ø = { } ( or, if you prefer, that : { } = Ø ).