The definition of differential privacy states that if $\mathcal{M}$ is $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially private, then $\forall x,y$ such that $||x-y||_1\leq1$ and for all $S \subseteq \mathrm{Range}(\mathcal{M})$:
$$\mathrm{Pr}(M(x)\in S) \leq e^\epsilon \mathrm{Pr}(M(y)\in S) + \delta. $$
Now, suppose you were able to show that for any outcome $s_i$ (single element) that $\mathcal{M}$ was $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially private, i.e., $\mathrm{Pr}(M(x)= s_i) \leq e^\epsilon \mathrm{Pr}(M(y)= s_i) + \delta $. Then for a set $S=\cup_i s_i$, since $\mathrm{Pr}(M(x)\in S) = \sum_i \mathrm{Pr}(M(x)=s_i)$, we have that:
$$\sum_i \mathrm{Pr}(M(x)=s_i) \leq e^\epsilon \sum_i \mathrm{Pr}(M(y)=s_i) + |S| \delta \implies$$ $$\mathrm{Pr}(M(x)\in S) \leq e^\epsilon \mathrm{Pr}(M(y) \in S) + |S| \delta$$
The above is fine if we have $(\epsilon,0)$ with $\delta=0$, but non-zero delta causes a problem. There is a one to one corresponds between proving differential privacy over a single element and a set in the case when $\delta=0$. But the definition doesn't make sense to me for $\delta \neq 0$.
What am I missing?