1
$\begingroup$

I was trying to show that Borel $\sigma$ algebra is smaller than lebesgue measurable sets. I could come up with a proof for the cardinality of lebesgue measurable sets being $2^c$. Cardinality of Borel sets is at least as big as reals. So I am left with showing that its cardinality is less than $2^c$. But I have no idea how to do this.This also seems to be contradictory because continuum hypothesis states that there is no cardinality in between $C$ and $2^c$. If anyone can help it would be great. Thanks

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure the smaller refers to the cardinality? $\endgroup$ – gaoxinge Mar 1 '14 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ @gaoxinge yes i am refering to the cardinality and c is cardinality of $2^{N_0}$ $\endgroup$ – happymath Mar 1 '14 at 10:24
  • $\begingroup$ See this. $\endgroup$ – David Mitra Mar 1 '14 at 10:26
  • $\begingroup$ What's $N_0$? Do you mean $\aleph_0$? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 1 '14 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila yes $\endgroup$ – happymath Mar 1 '14 at 10:29
5
$\begingroup$

The Borel sets themselves is a set of size $\frak c$, which is indeed smaller than $2^\frak c$, the cardinality of the Lebesgue measurable sets. So there's no contradiction with any form of continuum hypothesis.

The simplest proof I know involves transfinite induction, and the internal hierarchy of Borel sets. So you don't just view Borel sets as "the smallest $\sigma$-algebra including the open sets", but rather construct it in $\omega_1$ steps from the open sets. Then one can prove by induction that every step along the way has cardinality $\frak c$, so the entire algebra has size $\aleph_1\cdot\frak c=c$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ isn't there any proof which avoids transfinite induction or its equivalent formulations? $\endgroup$ – happymath Mar 1 '14 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ Not that I know of. And I don't know how to circumvent it either. In any case, as far as using ordinals and transfinite recursion goes, this case is quite simple. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 1 '14 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ So is there something like it is not provable without transfinite induction. But transfinite induction is not justified all the times. So how can we be sure that the proof is right? $\endgroup$ – happymath Mar 1 '14 at 10:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand your last comment. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 1 '14 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ We can use transfinite induction only on well ordered sets. But we do not know whether $c$ is well ordered. So can we assume transfinite induction to hold even here. $\endgroup$ – happymath Mar 2 '14 at 4:54

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.