Is Axiom 2 of Sigma Algebras Equivalent to X Being in the Sigma Field?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axioms
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
Wiki says that a sigma algebra (or sigma field) is a subset \Sigma of the powerset of some set X satisfying the following axioms

1) E\in \Sigma \Rightarrow E^c \in \Sigma

2) E_i \in \Sigma \ \ \forall i \in I \Rightarrow \bigcup_{i\in I}E_i \in \Sigma

(where the index set I is countable)

Am I missing something or is axiom 2 equivalent to the much less complicated "2') X\in \Sigma"? Cause for any element of \Sigma, since its complement is in \Sigma also, the union of both is X itself. So 2) is satified as soon as 2') is. Conversely, 2) implies that X is in \Sigma simply by taking an element of \Sigma and its complement in the union.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
(2) applies to any sequence of elements of sigma. That includes sequences that don't contain a pair of complementary sets.
 
oh, right!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top