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.

Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the collection of all subsets A of an uncountable set $\Omega$ for which either A or $A^c$ are countable. Let $\mu(A)$ denote the cardinality of A. Define $\phi(A)$ equal to $\emptyset$ or $\infty$ according as $A$ is countable or uncountable. Show that $\phi ≪ \mu$. Then show that the Radon-Nikodym theorem fails.

This is an assignment. I found that this problem is not rigorous unless in this case we treat $+\infty$ as a number; and this equation, $+\infty+\infty=+\infty$ holds where we do not distinguish the cardinality of all the rational number, $\aleph_0$, and the cardinality of real number, $\aleph_1$, and so on.

If we treat $\infty$ as a number, it is easy to show that $\mathcal{A}$ is a $\sigma$-field, $\mu$ and $\phi$ a measure and $\phi ≪ \mu.$

My question is: Does this make sense $\aleph_0+\aleph_1+\aleph_2$? (Set theory is not my suit.)

share|improve this question
5  
Sure, you can talk about $\aleph_0 + \aleph_1 + \aleph_2$. It's equal to $\aleph_2$. But I don't think that's the correct way to approach this problem. –  Zhen Lin Mar 13 '11 at 16:53
    
In this case, could we treat $\aleph_i$ as the same number,$\infty$? –  Jun Deng Mar 13 '11 at 17:14
9  
You seem a bit confused. The $\infty$ of the extended real numbers -- i.e., such that in real analysis the notion of "real-valued function" is relaxed to functions which may take values in $[-\infty,\infty]$ -- is not the same notion as the cardinality of a(ny) infinite set. In particular this problem doesn't have anything to do with cardinal arithmetic. –  Pete L. Clark Mar 13 '11 at 17:32
5  
$\aleph_1$ is not necessarily the cardinality of the real numbers! –  Henno Brandsma Mar 13 '11 at 17:36
    
Thanks Henno. Sure. Tricky Cardinality of the continuum. –  Jun Deng Mar 13 '11 at 18:34

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

A measure (in your case) takes values in $[-\infty, +\infty]$ or even $[0,\infty]$ probably. The extended reals do have the arithmetric "rule" or convention that $+\infty + x = \infty$ for $x$ a normal real or $\infty$, while $+\infty + (-\infty)$ is undefined. This means that the description of the measure $\mu$, the so-called counting measure, must mean that any infinite set $A$, either countable or uncountable, gets $\mu(A) = +\infty$; this is what is meant by the fact that the measure is the cardinality: we only distinguish the finite ones, and all infinite ones get value $\infty$. The addition convention ensures that this will work as a measure, as you said. The values thus are not cardinals, but extended reals.

With this information I hope you can figure out the question.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, Henno. This does help me! –  Jun Deng Mar 13 '11 at 18:36

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.