0
$\begingroup$

wiki gives this definition of sigma-algebra

Let X be some set, and let ${\mathcal {P}}(X)$ represent its power set. Then a subset ${\displaystyle \Sigma \subseteq {\mathcal {P}}(X)}$ is called a σ-algebra if it satisfies the following three properties:

  1. X is in Σ, and X is considered to be the universal set in the following context.
  2. Σ is closed under complementation: If A is in Σ, then so is its complement, X \ A.
  3. Σ is closed under countable unions: If $A_1, A_2, A_3, ...$ are in Σ, then so is $A = A_1 ∪ A_2 ∪ A_3 ∪ …$ .

since {X, ∅} satisfies condition (3), it follows that {X, ∅} is the smallest possible σ-algebra on X. The largest possible σ-algebra on X is $2^X:= {\mathcal {P}}(X)$

Based on which, is it reasonable to claim the power set of the natural numbers, ${\mathcal {P}}(\mathbb{N})$, is the largest possible σ-algebra on $\mathbb{N}$?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As your quote says: The power set is the largest $\sigma$-algebra for every set. Since $\mathbb{N}$ is a set, your claim is true. $\endgroup$ – John Aug 6 at 7:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes.First of all, $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb N)$ is a $\sigma-$algebra. If $\Sigma$ is any $\sigma-$algebra on $\mathbb N$, then we have $\Sigma\subset\mathcal{P}(\mathbb N)$ by definition. So $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb N)$ is the largest $\sigma-$algebra on $\mathbb N$. $\endgroup$ – Feng Shao Aug 6 at 7:09
6
$\begingroup$

It is reasonable, provided you use a reasonable definition of biggest. $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})$ is the biggest in the sense that for any $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma$ over $\mathbb{N}$ there is a natural inclusion map $i: \Sigma \rightarrow \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})$. Don't try to define 'biggest' via size or cardinality, that could get messy.

$\endgroup$

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.