Infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection

In summary, the person is struggling with combining infinite unions and intersections. They ask for help and provide a summary of what they need to do. They assume that x is in some set and then use the assumption to show that x is in A. They are then done.
  • #1
bert2612
5
0
I am struggling with combining infinite unions with infinite intersections, the problem i have is to show that, for Sets Aij where i,j [itex]\in[/itex]N (N=Natural Numbers)
∞...∞
[itex]\bigcup[/itex] ( [itex]\bigcap[/itex] Aij)
i=0 j=0


is equal to
...∞
[itex]\bigcap[/itex]{([itex]\bigcup[/itex]Aih(i):h[itex]\in[/itex]NN}
... i=0

please could someone point me in the right direction,
I can show that

∞...∞
[itex]\bigcup[/itex] ( [itex]\bigcap[/itex] Aij)
i=0 j=0

is a subset of
∞...∞
[itex]\bigcap[/itex] ( [itex]\bigcup[/itex] Aij)
i=0 j=0

however i am struggling with the function h(i) used in the above question to make the two sets equal
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If I'm reading that right, what you want to show is:

[tex]\bigcup _{i=0}^{\infty} \left(\bigcap_{j=0}^{\infty} A_{ij}\right) = \bigcap\left\{\bigcup_{i=0}^{\infty}A_{ih(i)}\ :\ h \in \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}\right\}[/tex]

To show two sets are equal, you show that they are subsets of one another. To show something is a subset of something else, you take an arbitrary element of the first thing and show it belongs to the second thing: "[itex]x \in[/itex] one set [itex]\Longrightarrow x \in[/itex] other set." Now the questions are: (a) how do I use the assumption that [itex]x[/itex] is in some set, and (b) how do I prove that [itex]x[/itex] is in some set? For both question, the answer is to look at what the defining property of the set is. I.e. if [itex]A = \{x : \phi(x)\}[/itex], then "[itex]x \in A[/itex]" is equivalent to "[itex]\phi(x)[/itex]."

So to get you started, the first half of what you want to do is:

Assume: [itex]\exists i \in \mathbb{N}\ \forall j \in \mathbb{N}\ x \in A_{ij}[/itex]

and Deduce: [itex]\forall h \in \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}\ \exists i \in \mathbb{N}\ x \in A_{ih(i)}[/itex]

How do you deduce something of the form of what you want to deduce? It starts with a [itex]\forall[/itex], so you say, "let [itex]h\in \mathbb{N}^{\mathbb{N}}[/itex]" be arbitrary. Then your goal is to find an [itex]i \in \mathbb{N}[/itex] such that [itex]x\in A_{ih(i)}[/itex]. Given such an [itex]h[/itex], which [itex]i[/itex] should you choose? Well, look at your assumption to see if it gives you any suggestions: [itex]\exists i \in \mathbb{N} \dots[/itex]. There's only one thing you can do with such an assumption: instantiate it. So let [itex]i^\ast[/itex] be such that [itex]\forall j \in \mathbb{N}\ x\in A_{i^\ast j}[/itex]. Does this [itex]i^\ast[/itex] work for your purpose? You need to check, will [itex]x \in A_{i^\ast h(i^\ast)}[/itex]? Yes, by choice of [itex]i^\ast[/itex], [itex]x \in A_{i^\ast j}[/itex] for all [itex]j[/itex], in particular for [itex]j = h(i^\ast)[/itex]. So you're done (one half of the problem).

Normally I don't like to provide solutions, but I have given you half the solution here. What you should take away from this is that there is essentially no thinking involved, you just have to unpack the definitions and think about the standard ways to do things like:

  • Prove two sets are equal
  • Prove one set is a subset of another
  • Prove an implication
  • Use an assumption that has an existential quantifier
  • How to "update" what your given assumption is once you've eliminated an existential quantifier via an instantiation
  • Use an assumption that has a universal quantifier
  • Deal with a conclusion that has a universal quantifier
  • How to "update" what your goal is once you've eliminated a universal quantifier from the desired conculsion via a "let ... be arbitrary" type of statement.
  • Deal with a conclusion that has an existential quantifier
  • etc.

Just as everyone needs to learn basic, purely mechanical things like adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing so they can use these tools creatively to do some actual useful and interesting computations, one needs to learn the basic mechanics of dealing with sets, quantifiers, and logical connectives in order to do interesting, creative mathematics. The problem here is purely mechanical, so don't over think it. Rather, try to approach it very analytically and logically, break things down into definitions and routine steps and at some point you will just fly through them.
 
  • #3
this helped a lot, thank you
 

Related to Infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection

What is an infinitary union combined with an infinitary intersection?

Infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection is a mathematical concept used in set theory. It refers to the process of taking the union or intersection of an infinite number of sets.

How is infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection different from regular union and intersection?

The main difference is that infinitary union and intersection involve an infinite number of sets, whereas regular union and intersection only involve a finite number of sets. Additionally, infinitary union and intersection can result in more complex or infinite sets, whereas regular union and intersection always result in a finite set.

What is the purpose of using infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection?

This concept is useful in mathematical proofs and constructions that involve infinite sets. It allows for the manipulation and analysis of infinite sets in a rigorous and logical way.

What are some examples of applications of infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection?

Infinitary union and intersection can be used in various areas of mathematics, such as topology, measure theory, and functional analysis. For example, in topology, these concepts are used to define topologies on infinite sets and to study their properties.

Are there any limitations or restrictions when using infinitary union combined with infinitary intersection?

Yes, there are certain conditions that must be met for these operations to be well-defined. For instance, the sets involved must be well-defined and the operations must be associative and commutative. Additionally, the axiom of choice is often needed to guarantee the existence of these operations.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
777
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
945
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
4
Views
652
Back
Top