I posted this in the homework section, but I think it probably belongs here.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So Halmos says in Section 9 on families, "Suppose, for instance, that {I_{j}} is a family of sets with domain J, say; write K=U_{j}I_{j}and let {A_{k}} be a family of sets with domain K. Is it then not difficult to prove that, U_{k∈ K}A_{k}=U_{j∈ J}(U_{i∈ Ij}Ai); this is the generalized version of the associative law for unions

So, I'm just trying to wrap my head around why this is the generalized version of the associative law for unions. Do we have to assign some kind of sequence for the way we take the union over K that somehow transfers to the way we take union over J and Ij? This may be a dumb question, but I'm a bit confused.

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

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

# Halmos-Generalized Version of Associative Law

Loading...

Similar Threads - Halmos Generalized Version | Date |
---|---|

I Specialization-generalization(mathematical logic) | May 10, 2017 |

A Logistic Regression Interpretation | Mar 17, 2017 |

Chapman Kolmogorov Th. - generality? | Nov 23, 2015 |

What's Wrong with This Proof About Unions? (A Statement in Halmos) | May 22, 2013 |

Naive Set Theory by Paul R. Halmos | Jul 6, 2005 |

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