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 $\mathcal{P}_0(X)$ the Power set of $X$ without the empty set and let $\dot{x}:=\{A\subseteq X: x \in A\}$ the one point filter generated by $x$. Furtermore let $$ \mathcal{A} := \{ f \in X^{\mathcal{P}_0(X)} : \ \forall A \in \mathcal{P}_0(X): f(A) \in A\} $$ be the set of the functions mapping subsets of the power set to elements of them. Let $\varphi$ be a filter on $\mathcal{P}_0(X)$ with $$\forall f \in \mathcal{A} \exists x_f \in X : f[\varphi]=\dot{x}_f.$$ Here $f[\varphi]$ stands for the filter generated from the filter basis: $$ \{ \operatorname{image} f|_M \ : \ M \in \varphi\}$$

It seems like our definition of filter is not the standard definition, to avoid confusion $\varphi \subset \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(X))$

Now we shall show that if $X=\mathbb{Z}$, then it follows that $\varphi$ is a one point filter. From the given property we already can conclude that $\varphi$ is an ultrafilter but I don't know what I shall do next, could someone give me a hint?

As it was asked for in the comments, our definition of a filter is:

Let $S$ be a set (an arbitrary one), and $A,B\subseteq S$. We call $\varphi\subset \mathcal{P}(S)$ a filter when the following holds

  • $\varnothing\notin \varphi$
  • $A,B\in \varphi \implies A\cap B \in \varphi$
  • $A\subset B $ and $A\in \varphi \implies B\in \varphi$

An ultrafilter is a filter, such that there is no bigger filter, e.g. when $G$ is a filter and $F$ is an ultra filter and $G\supseteq F\implies G=F$. More convenient is the equivalence that for every subset $A$ of $S$ it holds that $A\in F \wedge S\setminus A \in F$. The one point filter is already defined in the first sentence.

I posted the question on MathOverflow were someone wrote the answer.

share|improve this question
2  
Isn't $f\[ \phi \]$ as defined above just a subset of $X$? So how can it be a filter on $X$, i.e. a set of subsets of $X$? –  Alexander Thumm May 3 '13 at 15:58
    
@AlexanderThumm $f[\phi]$ is a family of subsets of $X$, I edited the post and hopes this clarifies it –  Dominic Michaelis May 3 '13 at 19:04
2  
What is the origin of this question, what is its motivation? –  yup May 4 '13 at 12:29
1  
@yup topology group exercise is its origin and the motivation is I didn't solved it while the group exercise –  Dominic Michaelis May 4 '13 at 18:32
3  
Now asked and answered on mathoverflow –  Martin May 9 '13 at 4:43

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Please note that the following is not my answer nor my idea but the one of Joseph Van Name, who posted this answer on MathOverflow and I just copy his answer here for completeness.

For this problem, we shall use $\mathbb{N}$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}$ since $\mathbb{N}$ is easier to work with in this case. We shall say that $A$ has property $P$ almost everywhere (or for almost all $A$) abbreviated a.e. if $\{A\in P_{0}(X)|A\,\textrm{has property}\,P\}\in\varphi$.

For $n>0$, let $f_{n}\in\mathcal{A}$ be the function where if $A\in P_{0}(\mathbb{N})$ then $f_{n}(A)$ is the $n$-th element of $A$ whenever $|A|\geq n$ and $f_{n}(A)$ is the last element of $A$ whenever $|A|<n$. Let $y_{n}=x_{f_{n}}$. Then $f_{n}(A)=y_{n}$ for almost every $n$. If $i<j$, then clearly $y_{i}\leq y_{j}$. Furthermore, if $y_{n}=y_{n+1}$, then $f_{1}(A)=y_{1},...,f_{n+1}(A)=y_{n+1}$ for almost every $A\in P_{0}(\mathbb{N})$. However, if $f_{1}(A)=y_{1},...,f_{n+1}(A)=y_{n+1}$, then $A=\{y_{1},...,y_{n+1}\}$ making $\varphi$ a principal ultrafilter. We shall therefore assume that $y_{n}<y_{n+1}$ for all $n$.

We claim that $\varphi$ is an ultrafilter. Let $S=\{A\in P_{0}(X)|f_{1}(A)=y_{1},f_{2}(A)=y_{2}\}$. Then clearly $S\in\varphi$. Let $R\subseteq P_{0}(X)$. Let $h\in\mathcal{A}$ be a function where $h(A)=y_{1}$ for each $A\in R\cap S$ and $h(A)=y_{2}$ for each $A\in R^{c}\cap S$. Then the function $h$ is constant almost everywhere. It is clear that $h(A)=y_{1}$ a.e. or $h(A)=y_{2}$ a.e. If $h(A)=y_{1}$ almost everywhere, then $R\cap S\in\varphi$. If $h(A)=y_{2}$ a.e., then $R^{c}\cap S\in\varphi$. Therefore, we conclude that either $R\in\varphi$ or $R^{c}\in\varphi$. Therefore $\varphi$ is an ultrafilter.

We shall now prove that $\varphi$ is a principal ultrafilter. Assume for the sake of contradiction that $\varphi$ is a non-principal ultrafilter. Let $Y=\{y_{n}|n\in\mathbb{N}\}$. We claim that $Y\not\subseteq A$ for almost every $A$. To prove this assume that $Y\subseteq A$ for almost every $A$. Then the ultrafilter $\varphi$ is $\sigma$-complete. To see this, let $T=\{A\in P(X)|Y\subseteq A\}$, and let $P=\{R_{n}|n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ be a partition of $T$ into countably many pieces. Let $g\in\mathcal{A}$ be a function where if $A\in R_{n}$, then $g(A)=y_{n}$. Then the function $g$ is constant almost everywhere. In particular, $g(A)=y_{n}$ for almost every $A$. However, this implies that $R_{n}\in\varphi$ for some $n$ making the ultrafilter $\varphi$ $\sigma$-complete. On the other hand, it is well known that there are no non-principal $\sigma$-ultrafilters on $P_{0}(\mathbb{N})$ since $|P_{0}(\mathbb{N})|$ is far below the first measurable cardinal if one even exists. We conclude that $Y\not\subseteq A$ for almost every $A$.

Now let $t\in\mathcal{A}$ be a function where if $y_{1}\in A\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ and $Y\not\subseteq A$, then $t(A)=y_{n}$ where $y_{n+1}\not\in A$. Then $t(A)=y_{n}$ for almost all $A\in P_{0}(X)$. Then the function $t$ is constant almost everywhere. In particular, $t(A)=y_{n}$ for almost all $A\in P_{0}(X)$. However, this implies that $y_{n+1}\not\in A$ for almost all $n$. This contradicts the fact that $f_{n+1}(A)=y_{n+1}$ for almost every $A\in P_{0}(X)$. We therefore conclude that $\varphi$ can only be a principal ultrafilter.

share|improve this answer
    
Maybe it would be better to post someone else's answer as a community wiki answer. –  TMM May 13 '13 at 13:13
    
@TMM made it Community wiki. I asked someone in chat but seems like there has been a missunterstanding. –  Dominic Michaelis May 13 '13 at 13:24

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.