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.

The union of a sequence of $\sigma$-algebras need not be a $\sigma$-algebra, but how do I prove the stronger statement below?

Let $\mathcal{F}_n$ be a sequence of $\sigma$-algebras. If the inclusion $\mathcal{F}_n \subsetneqq \mathcal{F}_{n+1} $ is strict, then the union $\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{F}_n$ is not a $\sigma$-algebra.

share|improve this question
    
Do you know this to be the case? I ask, because I believe I have a simple counterexample (consider $\Omega = \mathbb{N}$). But, I'm quite rusty. –  cardinal Mar 14 '11 at 13:35
10  
Is this homework. If so, it should probably be tagged as such. Hint: For every $n$, there exists a set $A_n$ such that $A_n \in \mathcal{F}_n \setminus \mathcal{F}_{n-1}$. –  cardinal Mar 14 '11 at 15:32
1  
@joriki, please feel free to post an answer. Don't limit your participation on my behalf! Unfortunately, I won't have time to post anything substantive today at the very least. I'd want to do more careful checking of my attempt anyway. –  cardinal Mar 15 '11 at 11:32
2  
@gylns Sorry to be blunt but did you actually accept @Jonas's answer? You might have noticed the consensus amongst @joriki, @cardinal, @Jonas himself and me that there is still work to do on @Jonas's idea (or on any other) to reach a proof. –  Did Mar 16 '11 at 13:19
2  
Yes, I suggest to de-accept it. –  Jonas Teuwen Mar 16 '11 at 20:19

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

This is not a complete solution as is indicated in the comments. Joriki's addition is also important. For complete solution, see A. Broughton and B. W. Huff: A comment on unions of sigma-fields. The American Mathematical Monthly, 84, no. 7 (1977), 553-554. (Thanks Didier for the reference)

The idea is to find a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets $F_n$ in $\mathcal F_{n + 1} \setminus \mathcal F_n$ and then prove that $F_n$ must actually be an element of $\mathcal F_n$ if $\mathcal F = \bigcup_n \mathcal F_n$ were a $\sigma$-algebra.

First pick a partition $N_1, N_2,\ldots$ of infinite sets of $\mathbb N$ and set

$$A_i = \bigcup_{n \in N_i} F_n.$$

So, by assumption $A_i$ is an element of $\mathcal F$. So, for every $i$ we have an $n_i$ such that $A_i \in \mathcal F_{n_i}$. Now, note that since $(\mathcal F_n)$ is strictly increasing, so we can choose $(n_i)$ to be strictly increasing as well.

Okay, nice. So now for every $j$ we can pick an integer $m_j \in N_j$ such that $m_j > n_j$. So now we set

$$B = \bigcup_n \, F_{m_n} \in \mathcal F.$$

So, eventually (for large $n$) $B$ will belong to all $\mathcal F_n$. So, eventually $B$ is in some $\mathcal F_{n_k}$(since $n_i$ is strictly increasing). By construction we now have that

$$A_k \cap B = A_{m_k} \in \mathcal F_{n_k}.$$

But! $n_k < m_k$ so $A_{m_k} \notin \mathcal F_{n_k}$. Contradiction.

So, now what is left is to show that such a disjoint sequence exists. Well, that is quite messy, so I will only add it if you want.

I would like to add that this is not my idea but that I have got the idea from somewhere in the past, but I forgot exactly where from.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't see why $(\mathcal{F_n})$ strictly increasing implies $n_i$ strictly increasing. If I understand correctly, the $N_i$ are arbitrary infinite sets without any particular relationship to each other -- then why should the $n_i$ bear any particular relationship to each other? –  joriki Mar 15 '11 at 17:09
    
BTW, you didn't introduce the notation $\mathcal{F}=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n$. –  joriki Mar 15 '11 at 17:12
2  
@joriki, $A_i$ is a sequence of sets and $A_i \in \mathcal{F}_{m(i)}$ for some mapping $m : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$. Then, via a subsequence, I believe you can take the $n_i$ to be strictly increasing. Let $m(i) = \min\{j: A_i \in \mathcal{F}_j\}$. This is well defined by the assumptions and the construction. Define $n_i$ inductively. Let $n_1 = m(1)$, $n_i = (n_{i-1}+1) \vee m(i)$ for $i \geq 2$. I think there are other (possible) holes in the argument, though. The role of $\mathcal{F}_n$ does not appear to be clearly established, for example. –  cardinal Mar 15 '11 at 17:30
1  
If the sequence $(n_k)$ is bounded, then $B$ may not be in any $\mathcal F_{n_k}$, and you can't conclude that $A_k \cap B = F_{m_k} \in \mathcal F_{n_k}$ –  mercio Mar 15 '11 at 17:32
2  
@Jonas: You definitely should indicate clearly in your post that it is not a complete solution. // For a solution, see A. Broughton and B. W. Huff: A comment on unions of sigma-fields. The American Mathematical Monthly, 84, no. 7 (1977), 553-554. –  Did May 25 '12 at 14:29

I want to do three things:

  1. give a counterexample to Jonas' lemma that there is necessarily a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets $F_n\in\mathcal{F}_{n+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_n\;$,
  2. show that there is however a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets $G_{k}\in\mathcal{F}_{n_k+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_{n_k}$ for some strictly increasing sequence $n_k$ (so Jonas' proof still works), and
  3. offer an alternative proof of the main statement, which also uses this modified lemma.

As a counterexample to the unmodified lemma, consider $\mathcal{F}_1=\{\emptyset,[0,6]\}$ and $\mathcal{F}_2$, $\mathcal{F}_3$ and $\mathcal{F}_4$ the $\sigma$-algebras generated by adding $[0,3]$, $[1,2]$ and $[4,5]$ respectively, to their predecessors. (To extend this to a strictly increasing sequence of $\sigma$-algebras, we can keep adding arbitrary intervals with new boundaries, e.g. $[2^{-n}/2,2^{-n}]$). If we choose $[0,3]$ as $F_1$, there are no new sets in $\mathcal{F}_3$ that are disjoint from it, and if we choose its complement instead, the same is true for $\mathcal{F}_4$.

So the best we can hope for is a sequence of pairwise disjoint sets $G_k\in\mathcal{F}_{n_k+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_{n_k}$ for some strictly increasing sequence $n_k$: Then we can form a new sequence of strictly increasing $\sigma$-algebras, $\mathcal{G}_k:=\mathcal{F}_{n_k}$, and then $G_k\in\mathcal{F}_{n_k+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_{n_k}\subseteq\mathcal{G}_{k+1}\setminus\mathcal{G}_k$ will be a disjoint sequence as desired, and we can prove the claim for $\mathcal{G}=\bigcup G_k=\mathcal{F}$ without loss of generality. Thus, Jonas' proof will remain substantially intact. So let's show that there is such a sequence.

It's not clear (to me) from the question whether the $\mathcal{F}_n$ all have the same underlying set, so I'll first show that we can assume that they do without loss of generality. Each $\mathcal{F}_n$ contains its underlying set as an element, so the union $U$ of all these underlying sets is a countable union of elements of $\mathcal{F}$, and hence in $\mathcal{F}$, and hence in some $\mathcal{F}_{n_0}$. So all $\mathcal{F}_n$ after that have the same underlying set $U$, and without loss of generality we can drop the initial ones that don't.

Since the $\mathcal{F}_n$ are strictly increasing, we can choose some (not necessarily pairwise disjoint) sequence of sets $F_n\in\mathcal{F}_{n+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_n$. (We need the axiom of countable choice to do that, but I suspect it would be difficult to impossible to prove any of this without some form of choice, so I won't worry about that in the following.)

Let's say $F_n$ is distinctive in $A\in\mathcal{F}_n$ if $F_n\cap A\notin\mathcal{F}_n$. This also implies $\overline{F_n}\cap A\notin\mathcal{F}_n$, since $\overline{\overline{F_n}\cap A}\cap A=(F_n\cup\overline{A})\cap A=F_n\cap A$. Also, if $F_n$ is distinctive in $A$ and $B\in\mathcal{F}_n$, then $F_n$ is distinctive in $A\cap B$ or in $A\cap \overline{B}$, for otherwise $F_n\cap A\cap B\in\mathcal{F_n}$ and $F_n\cap A\cap\overline{B}\in\mathcal{F_n}$ and thus $(F_n\cap A\cap B)\cup(F_n\cap A\cap\overline{B})=(F_n\cap A)\cap(B\cup\overline{B})=F_n\cap A\in\mathcal{F}_n$. (Since we're working within a single underlying set $U$, the complements are well-defined.)

Now let $n_0=0$ and $V_0=U$ and, by induction, construct a strictly increasing sequence $n_k$ together with sets $V_k$ and $G_k$ such that $V_k,G_k\in\mathcal{F}_{n_m+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_{n_m}$ and $V_k,G_k\subseteq V_{k-1}$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, that $G_k$ is disjoint from $G_j$ for all $k>j$, that $V_k$ is disjoint from $G_j$ for all $k\ge j$, and that for all $k$ infinitely many $F_n$ are distinctive in $V_k$.

There are no disjointness conditions to fulfill for $k=0$, so we merely have to note that infinitely many (namely all) of the $F_n$ are distinctive in $V_0=U$ (since $F_n\cap U=F_n\notin\mathcal{F}_n$) to get the induction off the ground. Then, assuming that $V_k$ and $G_k$ have the above properties for all $k<m$, take $n_m$ to be the first integer greater than $n_{m-1}$ such that $F_{n_m}$ is distinctive in $V_{m-1}$. This integer exists since infinitely many $F_n$ are distinctive in $V_{m-1}$. Consider $F_{n_m}$ and $\overline{F_{n_m}}$, which is also in $\mathcal{F}_{n_m+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_{n_m}$. Every $F_j$ with $j>n_m$ that is distinctive in $V_{m-1}$ is distinctive in at least one of $V_{m-1}\cap F_{n_m}$ and $V_{m-1}\cap\overline{F_{n_m}}$. Since there are infinitely many such $F_j$, we can choose $V_m$ to be one of $V_{m-1}\cap F_{n_m}$ and $V_{m-1}\cap\overline{F_{n_m}}$ such that infinitely many $F_j$ are distinctive in $V_m$. Take $G_m$ to be the other of $V_{m-1}\cap F_{n_m}$ and $V_{m-1}\cap\overline{F_{n_m}}$. Since $V_{m-1}$, $F_{n_m}$ and $\overline{F_{n_m}}$ are all in $\mathcal{F}_{n_m+1}$, so are $V_m$ and $G_m$, and since $F_{n_m}$ is distinctive in $V_{m-1}$, neither $V_m$ nor $G_m$ is in $\mathcal{F}_{n_m}$. Thus $V_m,G_m\in\mathcal{F}_{n_m+1}\setminus\mathcal{F}_{n_m}$ as required. Also, since $V_{m-1}$ is disjoint from all $G_j$ with $j\le m-1$, i.e. $j<m$, so are $V_m$ and $G_m$, and $V_m$ is also disjoint from $G_m$, and hence from all $G_j$ with $j\le m$. That completes the induction, and thus the proof of the modified lemma, since the $G_k$ and $n_k$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$ have the desired properties.

Now for the proof that I originally had in mind before I got sidetracked by the disjointness issue :-) It's similar in spirit to Jonas' proof in that it makes use of the fact that in cramming the uncountably many combinations of the $G_k$ into the countable sequence of the $\mathcal{G_k}$, one must invariably get ahead of oneself and generate some $G_k$ that wasn't supposed to be there yet.

Since the $G_k$ are disjoint, all their (finite and countably infinite) unions are distinct, and thus in one-to-one correspondence with (finite and countably infinite) binary strings, where a $1$ digit means that the corresponding $G_k$ is included in the union and a $0$ digit means that it isn't. All these unions must be in $\mathcal{G}$ if it is to be a $\sigma$-algebra. In particular, $G:=\bigcup G_k$ must be in $\mathcal{G}$, and thus in some $\mathcal{G}_{k_0}$. Without loss of generality, we can drop the $G_k$ with $k<k_0$ and assume that $G$ is in $G_1$, so that we can always form complements $\overline{G_k}\cap G$ in $G$, which corresponds to inverting all the digits in the corresponding string.

Now let's first try to derive a contradiction by trying to construct one of the $G_k$ in $\mathcal{G}_k$. To do this, we start with $G$ and first remove all $G_j$ for $j<k$ (which we can, since they are all in $\mathcal{G}_k$). Now assume that for each $j>k$ there is one of the above unions in $G_k$ such that its $j$-th digit differs from its $k$-th digit. If the $k$-th digit is $1$, we take the set itself, if it is $0$, we take its complement in $G$, thus inverting its digits. Then in either case the $k$-th digit is $1$ and the $j$-th digit is $0$ (since they differ by assumption). Now we can remove all $G_j$ for $j>k$ by intersecting with all these sets, leaving only $G_k$ and thus yielding the desired contradiction $G_k\in\mathcal{G}_k$. Thus, contrary to our assumption, there must be some $j>k$ such that the $j$-th and $k$-th digits coincide for all unions in $\mathcal{G}_k$, and this must be the case for all $k$.

This we can use to derive another contradiction, using a diagonal argument and forming a binary string as follows: Starting with $n_1=1$, in each step we choose $n_{i+1}>n_i$ such that the $n_{i+1}$-th and $n_i$-th digits coincide for all unions in $\mathcal{G}_{n_i}$, and we choose the $n_{i+1}$-th digit of the binary string being constructed such that it differs from the $n_i$-th digit. (The remaining digits can be chosen arbitrarily.) Then the union corresponding to this string is in none of the $\mathcal{G}_{n_i}$, and thus in none of the $\mathcal{G}_k$, and thus not in $\mathcal{G}$. This contradiction completes the proof.

Now one question remains: Either of the proofs (if we add the part about a pairwise disjoint sequence to Jonas' proof) is unlikely to be what whoever assigned the homework had in mind -- so is there a simpler proof?

share|improve this answer
    
Nice! And thanks for fixing my proof. I'll edit it and refer to yours for the lemma. –  Jonas Teuwen Apr 4 '11 at 16:24
    
I think your argument that all $\sigma$-algebras live wlog on the same set is not quite correct. Let $\mathcal{F}_n$ be the power-set of $[0,n]$. Then there is no $n_0$ such that $\bigcup_n\bigcup\mathcal{F}_n\subseteq\mathcal{F}_{n_0}$. –  Michael Greinecker May 11 '12 at 9:03
    
@Michael: Perhaps I hadn't made it sufficiently clear that, like Jonas' proof, this is a proof by contradiction that starts from the assumption that $\mathcal F$ is a $\sigma$-algebra. My proof for the underlying set uses that assumption, and your counterexample violates it (as in fact any counterexample must, since $\mathcal F$ is never a $\sigma$-algebra :-). –  joriki Nov 26 '12 at 5:02
    
@joriki I see now. I thought the proof enters the contradictory la la land at a later stage. But I think the proof is, except for an intermediate step, semi-constructive. For each $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{U}\supseteq\bigcup_n\mathcal{F}_n$, you find an element $G\in\mathcal{U}\backslash\bigcup_n\mathcal{F}_n$. –  Michael Greinecker Nov 26 '12 at 7:35

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.