Fréchet ideal and finitely additive measures

  • Thread starter Thread starter liwi
  • Start date Start date
liwi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi!
For every finitely additive measure \eta on natural numbers, all \eta-null sets obviously form an ideal.
Why there is no finitely additive measure on natural numbers whose null sets form the Fréchet ideal?
Thanks, liwi
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just to be clear, you define \eta to be a finitely additive measure iff \eta : P(\mathbb{N}) \to \mathbb{R} is defined for every subset of \mathbb{N} and satisfies:

\eta (\emptyset ) = 0, \eta (\mathbb{N}) = 1

X \subset Y \Rightarrow \eta (X) \leq \eta (Y)

\forall n \in \mathbb{N}\ \eta (\{ n\} ) = 0

X_1, \dots , X_n\ \mbox{pairwise disjoint} \Rightarrow \eta (\cup _{i=1}^n X_i) = \Sigma _{i=1} ^n \eta (X_i)

And the Fréchet ideal is the one consisting of all finite subsets of \mathbb{N}?
 
Last edited:
See Kunen's "Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs." By I Theorem 1.3 of that text, there is a family \mathcal{A} of 2^{\omega} subsets of N such that for all X, Y in \mathcal{A}, |X \cap Y| < \omega. Define \mathcal{B}_n = \{ X \in \mathcal{A} : \eta (X) > 1/n\}. By a simple counting argument, there exists n such that \mathcal{B} _n is infinite. Fix such n, and take X_1, \dots , X_n \in \mathcal{B} _n. Then it's easy to see that:

1 = \eta (\mathbb{N} ) \geq \eta (\cup X_i) = \Sigma \eta (X_i) > \Sigma 1/n = n(1/n) = 1

1 > 1, contradiction.
 
Thanks a lot!
I don't have Kunen's book, but for example \mathcal{A} = \{ \{f \restriction n; n \in \omega \}; f \in \, ^{\omega}2 \} or \mathcal{A} = \{ s(i); s(i) chosen sequence of rational numbers converging to i, i irrational \} is an uncountable family of subsets of a countable set, having the property you described. Is that correct?
thanks again,
liwi
 
Yes, both are correct. Your first A is perhaps preferable because it doesn't requiring invoking choice, however the second one can be modified to eliminate choice. Just explicitly specify what the sequence s(i) should be for given i, for instance you could specify that it be the decimal expansion approximation sequence, e.g.

s(\pi ) = \{ 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, \dots \}
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top