Here is where my real analysis textbook explains what it means for something to generate a $\sigma$-algebra, and subsequently what a Borel $\sigma$-algebra is. I couldn't really follow what it was saying.

Lemma 2.7. If $A_\alpha$ is a $\sigma$-algebra for each $\alpha$ in some non-empty index set $I$, then $\cap_{\alpha \in I} \mathcal{A}_\alpha$ is a $\sigma$-algebra.

Proof. This follows immediately from the definition.$$\tag*{$\square$}$$If we have a collection $\mathcal{C}$ of subsets of $X$, define$$\sigma(\mathcal{C}) = \cap\{\mathcal{A}_\alpha : \mathcal{A}_\alpha \text{ is a }\sigma\text{-algebra, }\mathcal{C} \subset \mathcal{A}_\alpha\},$$the intersection of all $\sigma$-algebras containing $\mathcal{C}$. Since there is at least one $\sigma$-algebra containing $\mathcal{C}$, namely, the one consisting of all subsets of $X$, we are never taking the intersection over an empty class of $\sigma$-algebras. In view of Lemma 2.7, $\sigma(\mathcal{C})$ is a $\sigma$-algebra. We call $\sigma(\mathcal{C})$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the collection $\mathcal{C}$, or say that $\mathcal{C}$ generates the $\sigma$-algebra $\sigma(\mathcal{C})$. it is clear that if $\mathcal{C}_1 \subset \mathcal{C}_2$, then $\sigma(\mathcal{C}_1) \subset \sigma(\mathcal{C}_2)$. since $\sigma(\mathcal{C})$ is a $\sigma$-algebra, then $\sigma(\sigma(\mathcal{C})) = \sigma(\mathcal{C})$.

If $X$ has some additional structure, say, it is a metric space, then we can talk about open sets. If $\mathcal{G}$ is the collection of open subsets of $X$, then we call $\sigma(\mathcal{G})$ the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $X$, and this is often denoted $\mathcal{B}$. Elements of $\mathcal{B}$ are called Borel sets and are said to be Borel measurable. We will see later that when $X$ is the real line $\mathcal{B}$ is not equal to the collection of all subsets of $X$.

My questions are as follows.

  1. I get quite confused/muddled when we consider a set of $\sigma$-algebras, i.e. a set of sets of subsets of a set, as per somewhere in the above. Can anyone tell me how they their thinking clear when playing with these things?
  2. Could anybody explain to me how they think about $\sigma$-algebras generated by a collection?
  3. Why are Borel $\sigma$-algebras important, i.e. why should we care specifically about the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the collection of open subsets of $X$? .
  • $\begingroup$ For 3: We can use it to develop,(among other things) Lebesgue measure and Lebesgue integration, which extends the family of real integrable functions to a much wider class than classical integration. It has applications in many subjects, including quantum mechanics. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Aug 24 '16 at 18:11
  1. The intersection does have a few levels. $\mathcal{A}_I = \bigcap_{\alpha \in I} \mathcal{A}_\alpha$ is an intersection of $\sigma$-algebras and each $\sigma$-algebra is a collection of sets. For a set $S$ to be in the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{A}_I$, it must be in every $\mathcal{A}_\alpha$ for $\alpha \in I$. In general, you have to keep careful track of notation. Write out the objects at each level.

  2. A $\sigma$-algebra generated by a collection of sets $\{S_\beta\}_{\beta \in J}$ (for some indexing set $J$) is the collection of all sets that can be generated by a countable amount of union, complement, and intersection operations on the sets $S_\beta$.

  3. The Borel $\sigma$-algebra is important in measure theory. Since a measure must satisfy $\sigma$-additivity (a.k.a. countable additivity), if a measure is defined on the open sets, then it has to be defined on the entire Borel $\sigma$-algebra.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the answer! Is it possible you could elaborate on 3 a bit, and why is what you wrote for 2 equivalent to what was written in my textbook? $\endgroup$ – user362105 Aug 24 '16 at 7:57

This an explanation of why the definition in your textbook is equivalent to point $(2)$ in the answer by Alexis Olson; it’s much too long for a comment. It does require a little familiarity with transfinite recursion; in particular, you need to know that $\omega_1$ is the first uncountable ordinal. I’ve added a couple of analogous closure constructions in hopes of making the idea a bit clearer.

Let $\mathscr{A}$ be a collection of subsets of $X$. We can define $\sigma(\mathscr{A})$ from the outside in, as the intersection of all $\sigma$-algebras containing $\mathscr{A}$, or from the inside out, by adding to $\mathscr{A}$ the bare minimum collection of subsets of $X$ needed to expand $\mathscr{A}$ to a $\sigma$-algebra.

To do the latter, let $\mathscr{A}_0=\mathscr{A}$. Given $\mathscr{A}_\alpha$ for some ordinal $\alpha<\omega_1$, let $\mathscr{C}_\alpha=\{X\setminus A:A\in\mathscr{A}_\alpha\}$, the set of complements of members of $\mathscr{A}_\alpha$. Then let

$$\mathscr{A}_{\alpha+1}=\left\{\bigcup\mathscr{S}:\mathscr{S}\subseteq\mathscr{C}_\alpha\text{ and }\mathscr{S}\text{ is countable}\right\}\;,$$

the family of all unions of countable subcollections of $\mathscr{C}_\alpha$.

Example. If $X$ is a topological space, and $\mathscr{A}$ is the family of all open sets in $X$, then $\mathscr{C}_0$ is the family of all closed sets in $X$. $\mathscr{A}_1$ is the family of all unions of countably many closed sets, so it’s the family of all $F_\sigma$-sets in $X$. $\mathscr{C}_1$ is the family of all complements of $F_\sigma$-sets in $X$, so it’s the family of all $G_\delta$-subsets of $X$. (The complement of a union of countably many closed sets is the intersection of countably many open sets.)

If $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal, let


and keep going.

Proposition. $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra.

Proof. If $A\in\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$, then there is an $\alpha<\omega_1$ such that $A\in\mathscr{A}_\alpha$. Clearly $X\setminus A\in\mathscr{C}_\alpha$, and $\{X\setminus A\}$ is a countable subset of $\mathscr{C}_\alpha$, so $\bigcup\{X\setminus A\}=X\setminus A\in\mathscr{A}_{\alpha+1}\subseteq\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$. Thus, $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ is closed under complementation.

Let $\mathscr{S}$ be a countable subset of $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$. For each $S\in\mathscr{S}$ there is an $\alpha(S)<\omega_1$ such that $S\in\mathscr{A}_{\alpha(S)}$. Then $\{\alpha(S):S\in\mathscr{S}\}$ is a countable set of ordinals less than $\omega_1$, so there is a limit ordinal $\beta<\omega_1$ such that $\alpha(S)<\beta$ for each $S\in\mathscr{S}$. By definition $\mathscr{A}_{\alpha(S)}\subseteq\mathscr{A}_\beta$ for each $S\in\mathscr{S}$, so $\mathscr{S}\subseteq\mathscr{A}_\beta$, and hence $\{X\setminus S:S\in\mathscr{S}\}\subseteq\mathscr{C}_\beta$.

We showed in the first paragraph that $\mathscr{C}_\beta\subseteq\mathscr{A}_{\beta+1}$, so $\{X\setminus S:S\in\mathscr{S}\}\subseteq\mathscr{A}_{\beta+1}$, and therefore, taking complements again, $\mathscr{S}\subseteq\mathscr{C}_{\beta+1}$. That is, $\mathscr{S}$ is a countable subset of $\mathscr{C}_{\beta+1}$, so by definition $\bigcup\mathscr{S}\in\mathscr{A}_{\beta+2}\subseteq\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$, and $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ is therefore closed under taking countable unions. Thus, $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra containing $\mathscr{S}$.

At every stage of the recursive construction of $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ we added only sets that have to be in any $\sigma$-algebra containing $\mathscr{S}$: we added only complements of sets that we already had and countable unions of sets that we already had. We just kept adding these required sets until we got to a point at which we could prove that no further additions were required. We could keep going, letting $\mathscr{C}_{\omega_1}=\{X\setminus A:A\in\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}\}$ and so on, but all of the families $\mathscr{C}_\alpha$ and $\mathscr{A}_\alpha$ for $\alpha\ge\omega_1$ are just $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ all over again, since that family is already a $\sigma$-algebra: taking complements and finite unions gets us nothing new at this point.

Analogies. In a topological space $X$ we can define the closure of a set $A$ from the outside in, as the intersection of all closed sets containing $A$, or from the inside out, as $A\cup A'$, where $A'$ is the set of accumulation points of $A$. The outside-in approach works because the intersection of closed sets is closed. The inside-out approach works because we don’t add to $A$ anything that doesn’t have to be in every closed set containing $A$, and we do add enough to get a closed set.

In a group $G$ we can define the subgroup $\langle X\rangle$ generated by a subset $X$ of $G$ from the outside in, as the intersection of all subgroups of $G$ containing $X$, or from the inside out, by recursively closing $X$ under the group operation and under taking inverses in a manner similar to the construction of $\mathscr{A}_{\omega_1}$ above; the main difference is that only $\omega$ steps are required instead of $\omega_1$, so that we can actually write down the generated group at one go, as in this answer.


Your Answer

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