>>11659564>How is this hard to understand?Because it's nonsensical.
>The members of the empty set have all properties.Say you have a collection of subsets of Z satisfying the property that for every element U in this collection, if n is in U, then -n is in U. Is the empty set a member of this collection? Yes: there is no element in the empty set to witness that the empty set fails to satisfy the aforementioned property. Although this may be what you meant by "The members of the empty set have all properties", don't pass that statement off as being obvious because it really isn't.
