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

While reading a probability paper titled Gröbner bases and factorisation in discrete probability and Bayes (can't find free version, sorry), I came across the explanation:

The set of indicator functions $I_i$ form a Boolean algebra that is in one-to-one correspondence with the quotient of the ring $\mathbb{R}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ with respect to the relationships $x_i(x_i - 1)=0$ where $x_i$ represents $I_i$.

$I_i$ is defined to be the indicator function $I_i(\omega) = 1 \;\textrm{if}\; \omega \in A_i \;\textrm{else}\; 0$, $i = 1, \ldots, n$.

I have a rudimentary understanding of rings, but can you please explain the correspondence shown here?


Edit: In the rest of the paper, the authors don't seem to limit themselves to $\mathbb{F}_2$. In fact, I can't see a need for the use of the minus sign in $x_i(x_i-1)$ if the field is $\mathbb{F}_2$. I can't verify if the coefficients of the polynomials are disregarded yet.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

A nice exposition of Stone's cryptomorphism between Boolean algebras and Boolean rings is in Burris and Sankappanavar's textbook A Course in Universal Algebra. There you'll also find a presentation of Boolean products - a powerful tool that facilitates the transfer of Boolean algebra results to other algebraic structures - leading to very general representation theories.

share|cite|improve this answer

I assume $i$ is an element of $\{ 1, 2, ... n \}$. The correspondence comes from identifying $x_i$ with the indicator function of $\{ i \}$.

But the sentence you quote is imprecise. If you wanted a Boolean algebra (more precisely, a Boolean ring), you would take the base field to be $\mathbb{F}_2$, not $\mathbb{R}$. If you wanted real multiples of indicator functions, you wouldn't say "the set of indicator functions."

share|cite|improve this answer

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.