I am doing an undergrad set theory course and I want to prove this in the context of formal logic. Please criticize my attempt of proof:
$U = \emptyset \vdash\forall A ( U \subseteq A)$
Proof:
Suppose by contradiction $\exists A$ such that $U \nsubseteq A$. Then:
$¬ \forall x ( x \in U \rightarrow x \in A)$
$\rightarrow$
$...$ (I want to use material implication here. How can I write properly?)
$\rightarrow$
$\exists x (x \in U) $
Which is a contradiction.
This may look like I am cheating, because I am trying to adapt the proof of naive set theory, and that was the hint I was given..
Any help would be appreciated.
A direct proof
What we want to prove is :
We have that $b \subseteq a$ is by definition : $\forall x (x \in b \to x \in a)$.
Thus, what we want to prove amounts to :
Now, we have the set-theory axiom : $\forall x \lnot (x \in \emptyset)$.
Now, we can "cook together the ingredients" :
1) $\forall x \lnot (x \in \emptyset)$ --- axiom
2) $\lnot (x \in \emptyset)$ --- from 1) by UI
3) $\lnot (x \in \emptyset) \to [(x \in \emptyset) \to (x \in a)]$ --- from tautology : $\lnot P \to (P \to Q)$
4) $(x \in \emptyset) \to (x \in a)$ --- from 2) and 3) by MP
5) $\forall x \ ((x \in \emptyset) \to (x \in a))$ --- from 4) by UG
Regarding your attempt, you have assumed $\exists a \ (\emptyset \nsubseteq a)$ that means, using again the definition of $\subseteq$ :
Using a double E-elim, we have : $(z \in \emptyset) \land (z \notin a)$, from which :
contradicting the axiom : $\forall x \ \lnot (x \in \emptyset)$.