0
$\begingroup$

When I am reviewing the definition of sigma-algebra: (suppose M is a non-empty collection of subsets of a set X) (1) empty set and X belong to M (2) M closed under complement (3) M closed under countable unions. M is also closed under countable intersections.

Now if I just have M closed under complements and the fact that M is closed under countable unions, why does it not suffice to say that M is a sigma algebra? Is there a counter example?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You'd like the whole space to be measurable, I suppose, and this and axiom (2) then makes the empty set measurable. $\endgroup$ – kimchi lover Feb 3 '19 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I missed out some conditions - I included them just now $\endgroup$ – Extra Learn Feb 3 '19 at 22:25
0
$\begingroup$

For $\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathscr{P}(X)$ to be a $\sigma$-algebra, three axioms are usually stated:

  1. $\emptyset \in \mathcal{A}$.
  2. $\mathcal{A}$ is closed under complements.
  3. $\mathcal{A}$ is closed under countable unions.

These will imply that also $X \in \mathcal{A}$ by combining 1 and 2, and that $\mathcal{A}$ is closed under countable intersections (by de Morgan, combining 2 and 3); note that we could have replaced 3 by the axiom that $\mathcal{A}$ be closed under countable intersections (and unions would also have followed). Also closedness under finite unions follows from 3 too, and then using 2 we have finite intersections too, and then differences too are preserved as $A \setminus B=A \cap B^\complement$ etc. So we get an algebra that is also closed under countable set operations. These 3 axioms (or their variants, we could also have demanded axiom 1 to be $X \in \mathcal{A}$ (and derive the empytyset using 2) are pretty minimal. We can easily come up with examples that only obey 2 out of 3 of them and are not $\sigma$-algebras.

The only example of a family obeying 2 and 3 and not 1 is $\mathcal{A} = \emptyset$, boringly enough. Because if we have some $A \in \mathcal{A}$ (so when $\mathcal{A} $ is non-empty), we get $A^\complement \in \mathcal{A} $ by 2, $A \cup A^\complement = X \in \mathcal{A}$ by 3 and then $\emptyset \in \mathcal{A}$ by 2 again. Voidly, $\mathcal{A} = \emptyset$ does obey 2 and 3, but not 1.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.