3
$\begingroup$

Note: It seems that the term inductive set has varying definitions. I am not referring (I think) to the definition used here, so this question is not a duplicate of that one.

Specifically, consider the definition found on p. 12 of Dudley, Real Analysis and Probability:

More generally, let $(X, <)$ be any partially ordered set. A subset $Y \subset X$ will be called inductive if, for every $x \in X$ such that $y \in Y$ for all $y \in X$ such that $y<x$, we have $x \in Y$.

The author then goes on to state that the set $( -\infty, 0)$ in $\mathbb{R}$ is inductive (presumably $\mathbb{R}$ with the standard partial order is meant), but:

Question: Is that a typo? I.e. how is $(-\infty, 0)$ inductive using the above definition? It seems like $(-\infty, 0]$ might be inductive using the above definition, but not $(- \infty, 0)$.

Either a correction of my flawed reasoning, or a sanity check that it is indeed a typo, would help.

(Flawed) reasoning: If we take $X = \mathbb{R}$ and $Y = (-\infty, 0)$, then seemingly $0 \in X$ is such that for all $y \in \mathbb{R}$ with $y < 0$, $ y \in (-\infty, 0)$. (That's literally the definition of that half-open interval, right?) So then seemingly by the definition of inductive set, if $(-\infty, 0)$ were inductive, we would have $0 \in (-\infty,0)$, which is obviously untrue.

However, the way the definition is worded in Dudley is very confusing to me and it seems likely that I am messing up the order of logical quantifiers and connectives to get a non-equivalent statement in my mind, in particular how I am thinking of the definition is as follows:

A subset $Y \subset X$ is inductive if, for all $x \in X$ such that ($y<x \implies y \in Y$), $x \in Y$.

(Now that I write it out my wording of the definition, in addition to most likely being wrong, is also rather opaque.) Anyway, $y <0$ clearly implies $y \in (-\infty, 0)$, hence my "reasoning" above.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I find it hard to believe that the definition of inductive you wrote is the one appearing in the book (in other words, I think you copied it wrong). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 21 '18 at 4:04
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila I double-checked and that's how the definition is written in the version I have. If it's relevant, the section is about transfinite induction and not "classical induction". That being said, you seem to be right that it is not a standard definition; I am not sure which source/reference listed at the end of the chapter the author got it from. $\endgroup$ – Chill2Macht Jan 23 '18 at 0:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I mean, it doesn't parse as an English sentence. Specifically, "such that $y\in Y$ for all $y\in Y$". $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 23 '18 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Oh yeah I definitely agree with that. $\endgroup$ – Chill2Macht Jan 27 '18 at 2:02
2
$\begingroup$

To clarify the definition, Y subset X is inductive when
for all x in X, if (for all y < x, y in Y), then x in Y.

Implied quantifiers create confusion and though popular, should not be used.
(-oo,0) is not inductive because of 0. (-oo,0] is inductive.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ OK, so I'm not crazy? I was really confused when the author's own example didn't work. $\endgroup$ – Chill2Macht Jan 23 '18 at 0:34

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.