I had a quick question concerning the definition of a [itex]\sigma[/itex]-algebra [itex]\mathcal{F}[/itex] over a set [itex]\Omega[/itex]. Most sources I've seen (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-algebra ) require that [itex]\Omega[/itex] or the empty set be an element of [itex]\mathcal{F}[/itex].(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Is this necessary? I ask because I am looking at "Probability: Theory and Examples" by Durrett, and he does not state that as a requirement. He only requires that an element's complement be in [itex]\mathcal{F}[/itex] and that countable (possibly infinite) unions of elements (in the set) remain in the set. Additionally, he says that [itex]\mathcal{F} \neq \emptyset[/itex], but this does not necessarily imply that the empty set is in [itex]\mathcal{F}[/itex].

So, has Durrett just forgotten to include this? Do his later results assume this requirement? Or is it the case this is an unnecessary requirement?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Definition of sigma-algebra

Loading...

Similar Threads for Definition sigma algebra | Date |
---|---|

B Is there a definition of randomness? | Dec 14, 2017 |

I Definition of "equivalent" probability problems? | Jun 25, 2017 |

Definition of Sigma Algebra | Jun 6, 2011 |

Meaning of countable in definitions of sigma algebra | Dec 4, 2010 |

Definition of a sigma-algebra | Apr 21, 2005 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**