Countable intersection of F-sigma sets

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jbunniii
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intersection Sets
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of F_\sigma sets in the context of real numbers, specifically focusing on the countable intersection of such sets and the existence of counterexamples. Participants explore the relationship between F_\sigma sets and their intersections, as well as the classification of certain sets as F_{\sigma\delta} or G_\delta.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that a countable intersection of F_\sigma sets need not be an F_\sigma set and seeks a concrete counterexample.
  • Another participant identifies that the set of irrationals, \mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}, can be expressed as a countable intersection of sets, specifically \mathbb{R}\setminus \{q\} for each rational q.
  • A participant acknowledges their realization that \mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q} is also a G_\delta set, noting that its complement, \mathbb{Q}, is an F_\sigma set.
  • Discussion includes the idea that \mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q} and \mathbb{Q} are atypical members of F_{\sigma\delta} due to their additional classifications.
  • One participant proposes a specific example of a "pure" F_{\sigma\delta} set, defined as S = (\mathbb{Q} \cap (-\infty,0)) \cup ((\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}) \cap (0,\infty)), arguing that it is neither F_\sigma nor G_\delta.
  • The reasoning behind the classification of S is discussed, including the implications of its intersections with other sets.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of certain sets and the existence of examples that illustrate the properties of F_\sigma and F_{\sigma\delta} sets. No consensus is reached on the existence of a "pure" F_{\sigma\delta} set.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of set classifications and the nuances involved in determining whether a set belongs to F_\sigma, G_\delta, or F_{\sigma\delta}. Some assumptions about the properties of these sets remain unexamined.

jbunniii
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
3,488
Reaction score
257
My question concerns [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] subsets of [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex]. An [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] set is one which can be expressed as a countable union of closed sets.

I have several books that state that a countable intersection of [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] sets need not be an [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] set (indeed, such sets have their own designation, [itex]F_{\sigma\delta}[/itex]), but none of them gives a counterexample. Does anyone know one offhand? This isn't homework/coursework; I'm just curious and haven't been able to come up with one. I would prefer a concrete example if possible, not just an existence proof.

Relevant facts: Clearly a countable UNION of [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] sets is [itex]F_\sigma[/itex]. All open and closed sets in [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex] are [itex]F_\sigma[/itex]. [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is an [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] set as it is a countable union of singletons. The only concrete example of a set I know is not [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] is [itex]\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}[/itex], the set of irrationals.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q} = \bigcap_{q\in \mathbb{Q}} \mathbb{R}\setminus \{q\}[/tex]
 
micromass said:
[tex]\mathbb{R}\setminus \mathbb{Q} = \bigcap_{q\in \mathbb{Q}} \mathbb{R}\setminus \{q\}[/tex]
Yes, I just had that realization while thinking about it again. I had been trying some more convoluted way of finding a sequence of open sets that decreased to [itex]\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}[/itex], but missed the most obvious one!
 
The above construction also shows that [itex]\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is a [itex]G_\delta[/itex] set (i.e. a countable intersection of open sets), which also follows immediately from the fact that its complement [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is a countable union of singletons, hence a [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] set.

So [itex]\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is in some sense an atypical member of [itex]F_{\sigma\delta}[/itex] because it is also in [itex]G_\delta[/itex]. Similarly, [itex]\mathbb{Q}[/itex] is an atypical member of [itex]F_{\sigma\delta}[/itex] because it is also in [itex]F_\sigma[/itex].

This led me to look for an example of a "pure" [itex]F_{\sigma\delta}[/itex] set, one which is in neither [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] nor [itex]G_\delta[/itex].

I think that [itex]S = (\mathbb{Q} \cap (-\infty,0)) \cup ((\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}) \cap (0,\infty))[/itex] is such a set. (i.e. the union of all negative rationals and all positive irrationals.) Here is my reasoning:

If [itex]S[/itex] were a [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] set, then [itex]S \cap (0,\infty)[/itex] would also be [itex]F_\sigma[/itex], but that is not the case, because [itex]S \cap (0,\infty) = ((\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{Q}) \cap (0,\infty))[/itex]. Similarly, [itex]S[/itex] is not a [itex]G_\delta[/itex] set. However, I can form a descending sequence of [itex]F_\sigma[/itex] sets whose intersection is [itex]S[/itex] by starting with [itex](Q \cap(-\infty,0)) \cup (0,\infty)[/itex] and removing one positive rational at a time.

Then I started thinking about what a "pure" [itex]F_{\sigma\delta\sigma}[/itex] set would look like, and it made me tired.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K