Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

$X=(-\infty,\infty)$, $\mathcal{F}_n$ is the $\sigma$-field generated by $[0,1),[1,2),...,[n-1,n)$. Prove $\mathcal{F}_n\subset \mathcal{F}_{n+1}$ and $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$ is not a $\sigma$-field.

My solution:

$\mathcal{F}_{n+1}=\mathcal{F}_{n}\cup[n,n+1)\Rightarrow \mathcal{F}_n\subset \mathcal{F}_{n+1}$.

Proof by contradiction. If $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n=[0,\infty)$ is a $\sigma$-field, then $\emptyset\in\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n \Rightarrow X=(-\infty,\infty)\subset\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n=[0,\infty)$, which is a contradiction. So, $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$ is not a $\sigma$-field.

I wonder if my proof is right or not. Thanks in advance.

The above is wrong. Let me try again.


Proof by contradiction. If $\mathcal{F}_n\supset \mathcal{F}_{n+1}\Rightarrow \mathcal{F}_n\supset \mathcal{F}_{n+1}\supset\{[0,1),...,[n-1,n),[n,n+1)\}\supset\{[0,1),...,[n-1,n)\}\Rightarrow \mathcal{F}_{n}$ is not the smallest $\sigma$-field containing $\{[0,1),...,[n-1,n)\}$, which is a contradiction.

Proof by contradiction. If $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$ is a $\sigma$-field, then $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n=\cup_{n=1}^\infty\sigma([0,1),...,[n-1,n))\supset\cup_{n=1}^\infty\{[0,1),...,[n-1,n)\}=[0,\infty)$, i.e., $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$ is the smallest $\sigma$-field containing $[0,\infty)$. Since $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$ is a $\sigma$-field, $\emptyset\in\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n \Rightarrow X\in\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n\Rightarrow X=(-\infty,\infty)$ is also the smallest $\sigma$-field containing $[0,\infty)$, which is not true. So, $\cup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$ is not a $\sigma$-field.

share|cite|improve this question
It is not true that $\mathcal{F}_{n+1}=\mathcal{F}_{n}\cup[n,n+1)$.What you want is that relation on the generating sets implies that $\mathcal{F}_n\subseteq \mathcal{F}_{n+1}$. To add more, it seems as if you are looking at the problem wrong. The $\mathcal{F}_n$ are not subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ but sets of subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. Therefore $X$ cannot be a subset of $\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty$ as that union is a set of subsets of $\mathbb{B}$ and not a subset of $\mathbb{R}$. Therefore your proof is not right. I have not yet thought about how to prove it though. – user45150 Dec 7 '12 at 6:13
Note that $\mathcal F_n$ is a subset of $2^X$ hence $\mathcal F_n$ contains no real number hence $\mathcal F_{n}\cup[n,n+1)$ has nothing to do with anything. – Did Dec 7 '12 at 6:15
Thank you, user45150 and did. Let me keep thinking. – Sam Dec 7 '12 at 6:19
I think you are taking mistake, because if $F_{n}$ be $\sigma$-field is generated with those intervals in $X$ so they should have complements of those intervals in $X$ too, so for examples we can make $(-n,n)$ on $F_{n}$ so also $\mathbb{R}$ is in $\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$ too and your reason for non-$\sigma$-field is wrong! – AmirHosein SadeghiManesh Dec 7 '12 at 6:50
In my above comment I should correct that $F_{n}$ contains it's element's complement and also $\emptyset$ and $\mathbb{R}$ , but not $(-n,n)$, I'm sorry, but look below proofs. and be careful about using nomads and symbols, $(-\infty,\infty)$ is not $\sigma$-field itself , a $\sigma$-field is a subset of powerset of something with some conditions! – AmirHosein SadeghiManesh Dec 8 '12 at 3:31

I'm sorry for my previous mistake and thank Mr. Arthur for his clever notation. Because every $F_{n}$ is a $\sigma$-field so $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}\; :\;\emptyset,\mathbb{R}\in F_{n}$ so it is brightly that $\emptyset,\mathbb{R}\in F:=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$. First condition is firmed.

Let $A\in F=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$ so there is one of elements of the union like $F_{m}$ for a number $m\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $A\in F_{m}$, as $F_{m}$ is a $\sigma$-field so $A^{c}\in F_{m}$ and thus $A^{c}\in F=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$. Hence second condition is correct too.

The main problem is in the Third condition. If $\{A_{i}\}_{i=1}^{m}\subset F=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$ for a natural number $m$, then it means $\forall i\in\{1,2,...,m\}\; :\; \exists n_{i}\in\mathbb{N}\; such\; that\; A_{i}\in F_{n_{i}}$ and as $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}\; :\; F_{n}\subset F_{n+1}$ so we can conclude $\forall i\in\{1,2,...,m\}\; :\; A_{i}\in F_{max\{n_{1},n_{2},...,n_{m}\}}$, let $n_{0}:=max\{n_{1},n_{2},...,n_{m}\}$, because $F_{n_{0}}$ is a $\sigma$-field so $\cup_{i=1}^{m}A_{i}\in F_{n_{0}}$ and thus $\cup_{i=1}^{m}A_{i}\in F=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$. So $F$ is a field but it is not a $\sigma$-field because if $\{A_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\subset F=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$ we can not do same work, as here there is not any guaranty that there will be one contains all $A_{i}$.

Get every $A_{i}$ as $[0,i)$, it will be in $F_{i}$ because $[0,i)=\cup_{k=1}^{i-1}[k-1,k)$ and we know that $[0,1),[1,2),...,[i,i-1)$ are in $F_{i}$. now $\cup_{i=1}^{\infty}A_{i}=\cup_{i=1}^{\infty}[0,i)=[0,\infty)$ but $[0,\infty)$ is not belong to any $F_{n}$, so it is not in $F=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}F_{n}$ that don't let $F$ be a $\sigma$-field.

Now why $[0,\infty)$ does not belong to any $F_{n}$? Because let $n$ be constant natural number, then every subset of $\mathbb{R}$ that is in $F_{n}$ should contains $(-\infty,0)\cup[n,\infty)$ or be contained in $[0,n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Hello, AmirHosein, please check my updated version. – Sam Dec 7 '12 at 7:23
You are right. The proof is not rigorous. I am trying to follow @Arthur's hints. – Sam Dec 7 '12 at 15:43
Note that if $A \in \mathcal{F} = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal{F}_n$ it does not mean that $A = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n$ where $A_n \in \mathcal{F}_n$ for all $n$. It only means that there is an $n$ such that $A \in \mathcal{F}_n$. – arjafi Dec 7 '12 at 17:26
@AmirHosein I like your rigorous proof. Thank you very much. – Sam Dec 9 '12 at 18:01
@AmirHoseinSadeghiManesh: +1 for the attempt. – Babak S. Dec 15 '12 at 14:30

Your Answer


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.