Why is the word "complement" used in set theory? Maybe this should have been on the English Exchange, but why do we use the word "complement" in set theory?  If I have:
$$(A \cup B)'$$
Why does "complement" mean everything but the union?  Is it because it is "all the things" that the original operation is not, thus it "completes" it?
I looked at the dictionary and wasn't sure.
Edit:  $(A \cup B)'$ was only an example so I could use the complement mark.  It was picked at random and was only meant to ask the question of what the word meant.  It was not specifically about a union.  I could have probably picked anything that allowed me to use the "tick mark" to indicate complement.  My MathJax is not good and cumbersome for me, so I only used the single example.

The first non-mathy definition that Merriam-Webster gives for "complement" is

something that fills up, completes, or makes perfect

You may also note that the other definitions have a similar connotation.  Things complement each other if, when put together, they make up something that is complete.  For another mathematical example, consider complementary angles, which add up to a "perfect" right angle.
In set theory, a set and its complement form a universal set (i.e. if $X$ is the universe, then $A \cup A^c = X$).  Hence the two sets complement each other, in the sense that together, they make a whole.
Addendum:  the Oxford English Dictionary (this may require academic access) indicates that "complement" was first used in the mathematical sense in Billingsley's 1570 translation of Euclid's Elements.  At that time, it had been in English usage for at least 150 years (the earliest reference in the OED goes back to 1419, as far as I can tell, meaning something to the effect of "finishing or completing something").  The word originally comes from Latin: "complēmentum that which fills up or completes."
