Disjoint sets
sets with no element in common

In set theory in mathematics and formal logic, two sets are said to be disjoint sets if they have no element in common. Equivalently, two disjoint sets are sets whose intersection is the empty set. For example, {1, 2, 3} and {4, 5, 6} are disjoint sets, while {1, 2, 3} and {3, 4, 5} are not disjoint. A collection of two or more sets is called disjoint if any two distinct sets of the collection are disjoint.
Generalizations
This definition of disjoint sets can be extended to families of sets and to indexed families of sets.
By definition, a collection of sets is called a family of sets (such as the power set, for example). In some sources this is a set of sets, while other sources allow it to be a multiset of sets, with some sets repeated.
An indexed family of sets
(
A
i
)
i
∈
I
,
{\displaystyle \left(A_{i}\right)_{i\in I},}
is by definition a set-valued function (that is, it is a function that assigns a set
A
i
{\displaystyle A_{i}}
to every element
i
∈
I
{\displaystyle i\in I}
in its domain) whose domain
I
{\displaystyle I}
is called its index set (and elements of its domain are called indices).
There are two subtly different definitions for when a family of sets
F
{\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}}
is called pairwise disjoint. According to one such definition, the family is disjoint if each two sets in the family are either identical or disjoint.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Disjoint sets” as sets with no element in common. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as sets with no element in common. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q215382. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Disjoint sets”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Disjoint sets primary sources, Disjoint sets archive and Disjoint research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Disjoint sets”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Disjoint sets” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.