Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm puzzled by something that might be complete silly. Halmos writes in his "Naive Set Theory":

If $\mathcal C$ is a collection of subsets of a set $E$ (that is, $\mathcal C$ is a subcollection of $\mathcal P(E)$), then write

$$\mathfrak D = \{X \in \mathcal P(E):X^\prime \in \mathcal C\}$$

It is customary to denote the union and intersection of $\mathfrak D$ by the symbols:

$$\bigcup_{X \in \mathcal C}X' \;\;\text{ and } \;\;\bigcap_{X \in \mathcal C}X'$$

He is defining the union and intersection of the complements of the sets $X \in \mathcal C$, which are subsets of the set $E$. $E$ is the "everything" set, which contains all sets considered in the current section.

I'm a little confused by why he is considering the set $\mathfrak D$. Why not just consdier the set of complements? $\mathfrak D$ is apparently, as I understand, the set of all subsets of $E$ such that the complement of $X$, namely $X'$ is in the collection of subsets of $E$, $\mathcal C$. By definition of the powerset of $E$,

$$\mathcal C \subset \mathcal P(E)$$

so $\mathfrak D$ is the set of subsets of $E$, $X$ such that $X'$ is also a subset of $E$.

I still can't see how $\mathfrak D$ enters in the picture here.

share|improve this question
    
$\mathfrak D$ is the set of complements, but presumably in Halmos's formulation of set theory, you have you have only defined an intersection of a family of sets, and not the intersection of a family of things related to the sets (such as complement). –  GEdgar Jul 14 '12 at 3:15
    
@GEdgar I understand what you mean. –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 14 '12 at 3:16
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

$\mathfrak{D}=\{X\in\mathcal{P}(E):X'\in\mathcal{C}\}$ is the collection of subsets of $E$ whose complements are in $\mathcal{C}$. For instance, if $\mathcal{C}$ is the collection of all finite subsets of $E$, then $\mathfrak{D}$ is the collection of all cofinite subsets of $E$, i.e., those subsets of $E$ whose complements are finite.

Note that for subsets $X$ of $E$ we have $X\in\mathfrak{D}$ iff $X'\in\mathcal{C}$. Take complements: this is equivalent to saying that $X'\in\mathfrak{D}$ iff $X''\in\mathcal{C}$. But $X''=X$, so $X'\in\mathfrak{D}$ iff $X\in\mathcal{C}$, and $\mathfrak{D}=\{C':C\in\mathcal{C}\}$. Thus, we can just as well describe $\mathfrak{D}$ as the set of complements (relative to $E$) of members of $\mathcal{C}$. And this is what justifies writing

$$\bigcup\mathfrak{D}=\bigcup_{C\in\mathcal{C}}C'\quad\text{ and }\quad\bigcap\mathfrak{D}=\bigcap_{C\in\mathcal{C}}C'\;.\tag{1}$$

If it weren’t the case that $\mathfrak{D}=\{C':C\in\mathcal{C}\}$, $(1)$ would not be justifiable.

share|improve this answer
    
Bah, what a farfetched way of putting it! Thanks! "Why not just consdier the set of complements?" –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 14 '12 at 3:14
1  
@Peter: Yes, $\mathfrak{X}$ was a typo. I suspect that the form of the definition of $\mathfrak{D}$ was chosen because it’s the form required to justify forming the set using the axiom schema of comprehension. That is, you can’t form a set $\{x:\varphi(x)\}$, where $\varphi(x)$ is some statement about $x$; you can only form a set $\{x\in y:\varphi(x)\}$, where $y$ is already known to be a set. –  Brian M. Scott Jul 14 '12 at 3:18
    
"Axiom schema of comprehension"$=$"Axiom of specification"? –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 14 '12 at 3:20
    
@Peter: Yes. I learnt it as comprehension, so that’s the term that I use naturally. –  Brian M. Scott Jul 14 '12 at 3:23
    
Hehe, OK. Thank you Professor! –  Pedro Tamaroff Jul 14 '12 at 3:24
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.