3

Given a family of countable sets $\{ A_i \}$, define $X = \cup_{i \geq 1} A_i$.

Under what conditions (with proof) on $A_i$, is it possible to rearrange the sets in this countable union?

An analogy with series leads us to the rearrangement theorem which says that a series can be rearranged iff it is absolutely convergent. Is there some other rearrangement theorem for unions?

Source of this problem is $\sigma$-algebras: Often when checking for the countable union is closed condition, we rearrange the union (without performing any check) - I was confused as to if this is always allowed?

Anon
  • 2,460
  • 1
  • 15
  • 23

2 Answers2

6

$\bigcup_{i\ge 1}A_i$ is by definition simply

$$\left\{x:\exists i\in\Bbb Z^+\,(x\in A_i)\right\}\,,$$

which clearly does not depend on the order in which the sets are enumerated. You can simply let $\mathscr{A}=\{A_i:i\in\Bbb Z^+\}$; then

$$\bigcup_{i\ge 1}A_i=\bigcup\mathscr{A}=\{x:\exists A\in\mathscr{A}\,(x\in A)\}\,,$$

with no reference to the enumeration at all.

Unlike the sum of an infinite series, the union of an infinite collection of sets is not a limit: it is simply a certain set of objects, namely, those that belong to at least one member of the collection.

Brian M. Scott
  • 616,228
  • 1
    Quite nice, by this logic though we can rearrange uncountable unions too? – Anon Apr 05 '21 at 21:55
  • 2
    @Kaind: Yes: there is no actual arrangement involved in the union. Any arrangement (e.g., by subscripts) is either for convenience or because it is needed in some other connection. – Brian M. Scott Apr 05 '21 at 21:56
  • 1
    To the proposer: A family $F$ of sets need not be indexed. And $\bigcup F={x: \exists f\in F,(x\in f)}.$ That is, $\bigcup F$ is the set of the members of the members of $F.$ – DanielWainfleet Apr 06 '21 at 00:09
1

Something loosely analogous to series re-arrangement: Let $S=(A_i)_{i\in \Bbb N}$ be a sequence of sets. It is not required that $A_i\ne A_j$ when $i\ne j.$

We define $\lim\sup S=\cap_{i\in \Bbb N} \cup_{j\ge i} A_j.$

We define $\lim\inf S=\cup_{i\in \Bbb N}\cap_{j\ge i}A_j.$

Then $\lim\sup S\supseteq\lim\inf S.$

Now if $f:\Bbb N\to\Bbb N$ is a bijection, let $B_i=A_{f(i)}$ and let $T=(B_i)_{i\in \Bbb N}.$ Then $$\lim\sup S=\lim\sup T \;\text { and }\; \lim\inf S=\lim\inf T.$$

This is because $x\in \lim\sup S$ iff $\{i\in \Bbb N: x\in A_i\}$ is infinite, and because $x\in \lim\inf S$ iff $\{i\in \Bbb N: x\not\in A_i\}$ is finite.

  • If $A_i\ne A_j$ whenever $i\ne j,$ then $x\in\lim\sup S$ iff $x$ belongs to infinitely many $A_i;$ while $x\in\lim\inf S$ iff $x$ belongs to "almost all" $ A_i,$ that is, iff $x$ belongs to all but finitely many $A_i.$ – DanielWainfleet Apr 06 '21 at 00:44
  • Interesting. I did know about $\lim \sup$ and $\lim \inf$ for sets. So this means I could rearrange (for countable sets) within these two operations - but also, that $\cup$ and $\cap$ can be used to express a limit (without explicitly mentioning $\lim$. – Anon Apr 06 '21 at 01:49