That definition is a (rare) example of Rudin doing things inefficiently. He could have defined for each non-negative integer
to be the set of non-negative integers less than
, so that
,
,
, etc. Then he could have defined a set
to be finite if and only if
for some
(where
includes
). This is essentially the usual set-theoretic definition stripped of some set-theoretic detail that would be out of place here.
That definition is a (rare) example of Rudin doing things inefficiently. He could have defined for each non-negative integer
to be the set of non-negative integers less than
, so that
,
,
, etc. Then he could have defined a set
to be finite if and only if
for some
(where
includes
). This is essentially the usual set-theoretic definition stripped of some set-theoretic detail that would be out of place here.
The parenthetical remark is just saying that formally the definition of finite set does not apply to the empty set, but the empty set is taken to be finite by convention.
If this bothers you, note it is possible to define a set as infinite precisely when there exists a proper subset of it with a bijection to the set. This captures in one go what it means to be infinite.
Videos
Is an empty set (null set) considered finite or infinite, and why?
How can you determine if a given set is finite or infinite?
What is the main difference between a finite and an infinite set?
I googled my question, but I'm afraid that I still don't get it.
That definition is a (rare) example of Rudin doing things inefficiently. He could have defined for each non-negative integer
to be the set of non-negative integers less than
, so that
,
,
, etc. Then he could have defined a set
to be finite if and only if
for some
(where
includes
). This is essentially the usual set-theoretic definition stripped of some set-theoretic detail that would be out of place here.
This came up in a course that we always assume the empty set is finite, is there anyone who has worked out a more formal or structured proof of why the empty set is finite? Or better yet used some kind of proof by contradiction to show "if we assume the empty set is infinite, we get x contradiction"?
Thanks!