0
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to prove the following statement:

Suppose $\{A_i\}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a countable, non-increasing collection of non-empty sets, i.e. $A_i \neq \emptyset$ and $A_i \supseteq A_{i+1}$ for any $i \in \mathbb{N}$, then $\bigcap\limits_{i \in \mathbb{N}} A_i \neq \emptyset$.

I suspect the statement to be true, but I am unsure about what kinds of arguments i can use to show it.

In the finite case, a simple induction argument shows that for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, $\bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^{k} A_i \neq \emptyset$ (actually $\bigcap\limits_{i = 0}^{k} A_i = A_k$). Since this happens for just any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, can I use this as an arguments that it must also hold for the countable intersection (I suspect not)? or do I need some other line of reasoning?

Any pointers to proof methods that can be applied or proofs of other similar statements will be helpful.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Suppose we take $A_k$ to be all natural numbers greater than or equal to $k$? The sets are nonempty, nested, and their intersection is... $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 13 '16 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ Consider $A_n = (0, 1/n) \subseteq \Bbb Q$. $\endgroup$ – BrianO Jan 13 '16 at 17:51
4
$\begingroup$

It isn't true. If for example $A_i = \{n\in \mathbb N: n>i\}$ you would have that the intersection is empty.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Let me just try and understand the reasoning here. If we take $A_i = \{n \in \mathbb{N} \mid n > i\}$ then $\bigcap\limits_{i \in \mathbb{N}} A_i = \{n \in \mathbb{N} \mid n > m\; \text{for all}\; m \in \mathbb{N}\}$, i.e. the set containing all natural numbers that are strictly larger than all natural numbers, which of course is empty? $\endgroup$ – AcId Jan 13 '16 at 12:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.