I can create a sequence of distinct sets and show that $F$ is countably infinite. I'm looking to create a power set of a countably infinite set, I suppose, but I'm not used to wading so deep into set theory. I am studying Bass's book on graduate analysis to prepare for a class this Fall. This is exercise 2.6.
-
3Incredible. That is, by far, the most complicated way I have seen to say "atomless sigma algebra has cardinality of at least continuum". – Asaf Karagila May 26 '14 at 00:49
-
1Ok, this is my attempt at an answer. Perhaps someone can verify. It's obviously inspired by the answer below, but I tried to make it more digestible for myself. Clearly we have an infinite binary tree. Let each binary sequence be the address of a set/node. Let two distinct addresses differ at the nth digit. Then the first set is the descendent of a set C, for instance, and the second step is the descendent of its complement. So they must be distinct. The set of all infinite binary sequences is uncountable and we just found a surjection from these to $F$. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 01:06
-
@AsafKaragila. That's my fault. I don't have the Tex speed to easily present as Bass did. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 01:08
-
Sorry for the typos. My ipad annoyingly "fixes" words. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 01:09
-
Ah wait. It's a bijection and my surjection was backwards. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 01:14
4 Answers
By induction, we can construct a sequence $(A_n)_{n\geqslant 1}$ of non-empty disjoint elements of $\mathcal F$. Indeed, since $\Omega$ is not empty, then it can be written as $\Omega=A\cup B$ with $A,B\in\mathcal F$ two non-empty disjoint elements. Then define $A_1:=A$ and then work with $B$. This set can be written as $B'\cup B'$; choose $A_2:=B'$ and work with $B''$, etc...
Then define the injective map $$\iota\colon 2^{\mathbb N}\to\mathcal F,I\mapsto \bigcup_{i\in I}A_i.$$
- 172,925
-
-
Could you elaborate on constructing the sequence? I like the simplicity of your approach. If I could construct the sequence, I would be happy with my understanding of the answer. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 00:18
-
EDIT 1: In fact, as pointed out in the comments, such $\sigma$-algebras do exist (I had originally claimed a proof that they didn't) and the method below simply gives a different way of solving the problem.
EDIT 2: In fact, I now realise that Zorn's lemma is not required at all.
Suppose $\mathcal{F}$ is as described, and countable. Let $x \in X$ and define $S = \{ F \in \mathcal{F} : x\in F\}$. This is non-empty (as $X \in S$) and is countable since $\mathcal{F}$ is countable. Then $S^*$ defined to be the intersection over all sets in $S$ lies in $\mathcal{F}$ (since $\mathcal{F}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra) and it contains $x$ since each element of $S$ does. But by hypothesis we can write $S^*$ as a union of two disjoint non-empty sets $A$ and $B$. Without loss of generality, $A$ contains $x$ and is strictly contained in $S^*$. But $A$ lies in $S$ and so contains $S^*$, giving a contradiction.
- 13,034
- 1
- 39
- 77
-
-
1I don't think this works. Your chain may consist of an uncountable number of sets, so the intersection need not be measurable. Indeed, I think the product $\sigma$-algebra on an uncountable product space like $2^{\mathbb{R}}$ is a counterexample. Every set in the $\sigma$-algebra depends on only countably many coordinates, so you can always cut it in half. – Nate Eldredge Aug 30 '15 at 17:25
-
1But you can use this idea to solve the problem at hand. Assume for a contradiction that $\mathcal{F}$ is countable. Then so is $S$, so setting $S^* = \bigcap S$ (which is a countable intersection), we have $S^* \in \mathcal{F}$. Then it's easy to see that $S^$ is the desired atom. ($S^$ contains $x$ so it is nonempty. Suppose we wrote $S^* = A \cup B$ with $A,B \in \mathcal{F}$. Without loss of generality $x \in A$. Then $A \in S$ so $S^* \subset A$, and $A$ is not a proper subset of $S^*$.) – Nate Eldredge Aug 30 '15 at 17:27
-
@NateEldredge Oh yeah, thanks, I realise that I was thinking of chains as ascending chains rather than totally ordered subsets, thanks for the correction. – Tom Oldfield Aug 30 '15 at 18:27
-
@ByronSchmuland The previous conclusion was wrong, since I was using the wrong definition of chain, but even in the previous argument the minimal element would have been measurable. The problem was that if $\mathcal{F}$ is uncountable then the intersection of all elements in a chain need not be measurable. – Tom Oldfield Aug 30 '15 at 18:29
-
And thanks to both of the above users for their comments, I posted the answer mostly because I would have been surprised if it was correct given the statement of the problem and wanted to find the flaw! – Tom Oldfield Aug 30 '15 at 18:30
I suppose the wording should run "the union of at least two disjoint nonempty sets," or the $\sigma$-algebra $\{\{\},X\}$ would qualify. Given that assumption, you can include an infinite binary tree, i.e. one with nodes $a_{i,j}$ where $j\leq 2^i$ and $i$ running over $\mathbb{N}$, into your algebra. This is uncountable because it's in bijection with infinite sequences of $1$ and $0$.
Then map $a_{0,0}$ to the maximal element $X$ of your $\sigma$-algebra. $X$ is a disjoint union $Y\sqcup Z\sqcup...$-let those be your $a_{1,0}$ and $a_{1,1}$. Continue, using the inductive hypothesis that each $a_{i,j}$ is disjoint from sets at its own level $i$, disjoint from or properly contained in those at earlier levels, and vice versa. Then in decomposing you'll never pick a previously chosen set again, or you'd have chosen some $a_{i,j}\subset a_{i,j'}$, contradicting the hypothesis.
- 52,457
- 4
- 59
- 113
-
Thanks. Yes the wording was actually that there exist two sets nonempty and disjoint. I'm still trying to unpack your answer, which is appreciated. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 00:16
-
I think I was approaching this problem along those lines, but the set theory got so (to me) complicated that I thought maybe the writer of the problem had a simpler answer in mine, since the other questions in that chapter, most of which I have answered, seem easier. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 00:23
-
Ok, I just have to show that each binary sequence addresses a distinct set via induction. – NS248 May 26 '14 at 00:44
-
1I see that you get an infinite binary tree with nonempty sets from the sigma-algebra at all the nodes, and I know that there are uncountably many infinitely long paths through this tree, but I don't see how that gives you uncountably many sets in your sigma-algebra. The obvious idea would be to associate to each path the intersection of the sets attached to the nodes on the path, but as far as I can tell, those intersections might all be empty and therefore not distinct sets. – Andreas Blass Aug 30 '15 at 19:33
-
@AndreasBlass did this ever get resolved? I have the same worry as you that this type of argument is incomplete for that reason (sorry to necromance, but I don't wanna post another question for the same answers) – Sidharth Ghoshal Dec 25 '17 at 02:05
-
@frogeyedpeas I don't think it got resolved in the sense of making this particular method work. Note that you can't in general get uncountably many pairwise disjoint non-zero elements, which is what this method tries to do. On the other hand, the original question got resolved by Davide Giraudo's answer, using a different method. – Andreas Blass Dec 25 '17 at 03:09
So I found a solution in the same vein of @Kevin Carlson that managed to deal with @Andreas Blass 's concerns about undefined intersections.
Let $A \in \mathcal{A}$
Then we can decompose $A$ into disjoint subsets (And decompose those subsets) to form a tree structure where each level consists of disjoint nodes, whose pairwise unions form the nodes in the layer above.
Now the nodes can be assigned an address as a binary real $k \in [0,1] $ where $1$ means descend left and $0$ means descend right.
We can now uniquely identify every real number with an element of $A$ of the form by defining the following operations:
$$ Q_0 (A, B) = A \cap B^c $$ (intuitively meaning remove B from A) $$ Q_1 (A, B) = A \cup B $$ (intuitively meaning add B to A)
Now every real number on the unit interval corresponds to a countable infinite descending path on this tree, where we alternate between removing and adding sets as we travel down the tree.
I'm going to refrain from defining that formally here (although if someone posts in the comments i'll be happy to add it in)
- 16,771