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 am working on a homework problem and am somewhat lost. I know that an answer will not be given on a silver platter and am fine with that - I need to know what I am missing in understanding so that I can solve the problem.

I need an infinite collection of subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ that contains $\mathbb{R}$, is closed under the formation of countable unions and countable intersections, but is not a $\sigma$-algebra.

So I immediately thought that the only requirement not mentioned to make it a $\sigma$-algebra is the closure under complementation. That is why I thought of maybe using $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})-\{\varnothing\}$, the powerset 'minus' the null set. Is this okay? Can you subtract 'nothing' like this? Otherwise I am quite lost and any direction would be greatly appreciated.

Nate

P.S> I could not find suitable suggestions to my question by looking around on the site.

share|improve this question
1  
Your idea of excluding the empty set is sound -- you just have to do a tiny bit more to make it work. Hint: Can you solve the "harder" problem of finding a family that is closed under arbitrary (not just countable) intersections and unions? –  Henning Makholm Sep 7 '11 at 22:36
1  
For questions like this, I like to start with some "minimal generators" and see what happens. For example, you could see what the minimal such collection is that contains $\mathbb{R}$ and the empty set - it turns out to be just the collection containing $\mathbb{R}$ and the empty set themselves. That doesn't work, since the collection of these two sets is a sigma-algebra and doesn't work since it's finite. But is there some other "small" collection of sets you could start with? –  MartianInvader Sep 7 '11 at 22:39
3  
Reg: 'Can you subtract "nothing" like this?'. By the way, if you are wondering if the set $\mathcal P(\mathbb R) - \{ \emptyset \}$ is well-defined, it is. This choice just does not work for the problem. –  Srivatsan Sep 7 '11 at 22:50
    
Thank you Srivatsan for letting me know that my proposed solution (which doesn't work for this problem) is conceptually okay/ well defined. Makholm: I am intrigued by your suggestion but cannot yet think of such a family. Any more hints? And yes, I do understand what MartianInvader says about the 2 failings in the trivial sigma-algebra. I also know that the "small" collection is still infinite (or countably infinite?) –  nate Sep 7 '11 at 22:56
    
nate, I hope my answer (on its various revisions) did not scare you. :-) at least the first half... –  Asaf Karagila Sep 8 '11 at 0:03
show 2 more comments

3 Answers 3

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Your proposed answer of $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})-\{\varnothing\}$ is not closed under intersections, because $\{1\}\cap\{0\}=\varnothing$.

Try $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})\cup\{\mathbb{R}\}$.

share|improve this answer
    
My suggestion does not even contain a $\sigma$-algebra, thus better ;-D –  Asaf Karagila Sep 7 '11 at 22:35
    
Haha I suppose :) You have my +1 –  Zev Chonoles Sep 7 '11 at 22:36
    
Thanks. I am in the process of trying to understand how this works! I see that somehow it just doesn't support closure of complementation. –  nate Sep 7 '11 at 22:55
    
@nate: Note that $\{1\}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})\cup\{\mathbb{R}\}$. What is the complement of $\{1\}$? –  Zev Chonoles Sep 7 '11 at 23:27
    
So on the reals, the complement of $\{1\}$ is: $\{1\}^c = \{\mathbb{R}\}-\{1\}$, which excludes $\{1\}$. But the proposed infinite set (that is uncountably infinite and equinumerous with the powerset of naturals [countably infinite]) is said to contain $\{1\}$ as a member of the powerset, $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})$. So $\{\mathbb{R}\}-\{1\} \notin \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) \cup \{\mathbb{R}\}$. Right? –  nate Sep 7 '11 at 23:41
show 4 more comments

The freshman solutions:

  1. $\left\{[0,\frac{1}{n}]\mid n\in\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}\right\}\cup\left\{\mathbb R,\{0\}\right\}$
  2. $\{A\subseteq\mathbb R\mid 0\in A\}$. (A suggestion by Henning in the comments)

The second is also known as a principal ultrafilter concentrating on $0$.


The raving set theoretic madness: (Some of the solutions may be fitting for advanced undergrad students, and might be less trivial than the above examples)

My initial approach was to take a ultrafilter which is closed under countable intersections, but clearly not for complements. However the existence of one over the real numbers is equivalent to a certain large cardinal axiom which made me formulate the original solution instead...

  1. $\Sigma^1_1(\mathbb R)$ sets (the analytic sets), which can be obtained as images of Borel sets. These are not closed under complements and contain all the Borel sets of $\mathbb R$.

  2. Take the co-countable filter over the reals, that is $\{A\subseteq\mathbb R\mid |\mathbb R\setminus A|\le\aleph_0\}$.

  3. Assume the Continuum Hypothesis is true. Let $g\colon\omega_1\to\mathbb R$ be some bijection, which is naturally extended to $f\colon\mathcal P(\omega_1)\to\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$. Denote by $\mathcal F$ the club$^+$ filter of $\omega_1$, that is all the subsets of $\omega_1$ which superset a closed and unbounded set.
    The club filter is closed under countable intersections, and any sort of unions. Now consider $\mathcal U=\{f(A)\mid A\in\mathcal F\}$, this would make a filter over the real numbers which is countably closed, closed under any union and since $\omega_1\in\mathcal F$, we have that $\mathbb R\in\mathcal U$. And of course, since $\mathcal U$ is a filter, it cannot be a $\sigma$-algebra.

share|improve this answer
    
Seems very complex. Since we are now presenting full solutions, what about just $\{ A\subseteq \mathbb R \mid 0\in A \}$? –  Henning Makholm Sep 7 '11 at 22:40
    
@Henning: Ah yes. I was too busy thinking about real-measurable cardinals that I forgot atomic measures give this :-) –  Asaf Karagila Sep 7 '11 at 22:49
    
@Henning: How about the added idea? Does that make my initial one simple? :-) –  Asaf Karagila Sep 7 '11 at 23:22
2  
nate is trying to get union and difference of sets straight and you're coming with filters, the club$^{+}$-filter and the continuum hypothesis? Come on! Cool down... :) –  t.b. Sep 7 '11 at 23:28
3  
By the way, thank you Theo for the apparent sympathy! :) –  nate Sep 8 '11 at 0:10
show 1 more comment

Almost. But your formulation is not closed under intersections. For instance, the set $\{ 3 \}$ and the set $ \{ \pi \}$ are both there, but their intersection, $\varnothing$, is not.

share|improve this answer
1  
Mixedmath: Thank you for pointing that my intersection is not closed! –  nate Sep 7 '11 at 22:52
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.