2
$\begingroup$

I'm a computer science student currently studying universal algebra by reading the book Foundations of Algebraic Specification and Formal Software Development by Donald Sannella and Andrzej Tarlecki.

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the subtleties of indexed families. As far as I know, families are just maps between two sets: $I$, the index set; and $A$, the indexed set. That means that $|A|_{i_0}$, which is the element of $A$ indexed by $i_0$ could be basically anything, like a number, a set, a collection, etc. And that the particular case where $I$ is $\mathbb{N}$ it is called a sequence.

However, the definition of the product of an indexed family is:

$ \prod_{i\in I} A_i=\{f:I\to \bigcup_{i\in I} A_i: (\forall i_0\in I)(f(i_0)\in A_{i_0})\}$

Considering the definition of a family, then the product could be also defined as the set of all families $ (a_i)_{i \mathop \in I}$ with $|a|_{i_0} \in |A|_{i_0}$ for each $i_0 \in I$

But then, it is implied that the indexed set ($A$) must be a collection (a set of sets), because otherwise, $|A|_{i_0}$ could be an element like a number thus the union of $|A|_i$ would make no sense, since it only works for sets. So why does the definition of a family (at least the ones I've read on several math textbooks) does not require the indexed set to be a collection rather than just a set?

Also, would this mean that the elements of a sequence must be sets (containing just one or more elements)? I'm use to thinking about elements of a sequence, specially when studying convergence, as just real numbers.

And finally, I will give an example of what I understand so that you could tell me what I'm missing:

I will define a family of countries indexed by their currency name. So:

  • $I$, the index set would be $I = \{pound, dollar,euro\} $

  • $A$, the indexed set would be $A = \{\{Spain, Italy, France\},\{UK\},\{US, Canada\}\}$

  • Then, the family would be a mapping defined as: $(A_i)_{i \in I}= \{pound \rightarrow \{UK\},dollar \rightarrow \{US, Canada\}, euro \rightarrow \{Spain, Italy, France\} \} $

  • Finally, the product of the family $\prod_{i\in I} A_i$ will consist on a set of mappings (families) where each one of them has $I$ as index set, and maps each index to a set containing just one of the elements of the corresponding subset of $A$. So in that way, each of these families will map the indexes to one of the six combinations possibles by picking one element from each subset of $A$. Then the product of the family will be a set of exactly 6 families, somewhat similar to the Cartesian product of the subsets of $A$.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Families are not maps; unless that book has explicifly given the word family some other meaning, a family of things is simply a set of things. An indexed family of things, on the other hand, is technically a function from the index set to the unindexed set of those same things; the things themselves can be of any type(s). In practice, though, it’s often simpler to think of the indexing simply as a way of attaching labels to the members of the family.

As you’ve observed, the definition that you’ve been given of the product $\prod_{i\in I}A_i$ of the indexed family $\{A_i:i\in I\}$ applies only to indexed families of sets; that does not mean that you cannot have indexed families of other things, as in your example. However, your set

$$A=\big\{\{\text{Spain},\text{Italy},\text{France}\},\{\text{UK}\},\{\text{US},\text{Canada}\}\big\}$$

is not in itself an indexed family; it’s just a set of sets. It doesn’t become an indexed family until you actually index it. Taking $I=\{\text{dollar},\text{euro},\text{pound}\}$, you can index $A$ as $\{C_i:i\in I\}$, where

$$C_{\text{dollar}}=\{\text{US},\text{Canada}\}\,,$$ $$C_{\text{euro}}=\{\text{Spain},\text{Italy},\text{France}\}\,$$

and $$C_{\text{pound}}=\{\text{UK}\}\,.$$

Then $\prod_{i\in I}C_i$ is the set of all functions $f:I\to\bigcup_{i\in I}C_i$ such that $f(i)\in C_i$ for each $i\in I$. There are, as you say, six of them; one is

$$\big\{\langle\text{dollar},\text{US}\rangle,\langle\text{euro},\text{Italy}\rangle,\langle\text{pound},\text{UK}\rangle\big\}\,,$$

and the other five are similar. This is indeed similar to the Cartesian product of the sets $C_i$ for $i\in I$: for instance, this function corresponds to the ordered triple

$$\langle\text{US},\text{Italy},\text{UK}\rangle$$

in the product $C_{\text{dollar}}\times C_{\text{euro}}\times C_{\text{pound}}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ such a lucid response! thank sir! $\endgroup$ – James Aug 9 at 3:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your detailed answer. I thought that family and indexed family were synonyms, but now I see they're not. So indexed families can have as indexed set numbers, collections, etc., but in order to think about the product (and I think union and intersection too) they must be collections, right? $\endgroup$ – Alexander Aug 9 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ But in the end you said that that the product of the family is the Cartesian product of each subset of the indexed set ($C_i$). However, I think that they are not the same, since for example one element of it would be (US, Italy, UK), and not {(dollar,US), (euro,Italy), (pound,UK)}. But as the book "Naive Set Theory" states, it's possible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between both products. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Aug 9 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Alexander: You are of course correct; I’ve no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that last bit. It’s fixed now; thanks for catching it. $\endgroup$ – Brian M. Scott Aug 9 at 18:32

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.