Proving an Infinite $\sigma-$Algebra is Uncountable

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that an infinite $\sigma$-algebra is uncountable. Participants explore different strategies and cases for constructing a proof, focusing on theoretical aspects of set theory and properties of $\sigma$-algebras.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest starting the proof by assuming that an infinite $\sigma$-algebra is countable and seeking a contradiction.
  • One proposed approach involves considering an infinite descending chain of nonempty subsets within the $\sigma$-algebra, leading to the construction of nonempty, pairwise disjoint sets.
  • Another case discussed is the absence of infinite descending chains, which implies the existence of infinitely many minimal nonempty elements (atoms) in the $\sigma$-algebra, allowing for the construction of uncountably many elements through unions of these atoms.
  • Questions arise regarding the meaning of having infinitely many atoms in the context of the proof, indicating a need for further clarification on this point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the general approach to the proof but have not reached a consensus on the specifics of the second case and the implications of having infinitely many atoms.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the structure of $\sigma$-algebras and the nature of the sets involved may be implicit. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps or definitions required for a complete proof.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Show that an infinite $\sigma-$algebra is uncountable.

Could you give me some hints what I could do??

Do I have to start by supposing that an infinite $\sigma-$algebra is countable??

But how could I get a contradiction?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Show that an infinite $\sigma-$algebra is uncountable.

Could you give me some hints what I could do??

Do I have to start by supposing that an infinite $\sigma-$algebra is countable??

But how could I get a contradiction?? (Wondering)
Here is an outline strategy for a proof. Suppose that $A$ is an infinite $\sigma$-algebra (consisting of subsets of some set $X$).

Case 1. $A$ contains an infinite descending chain of nonempty subsets of $X$. (In other words, there exists an infinite sequence $S_1 \supset S_2 \supset S_3 \supset \ldots$ of nonempty elements of $A$, each one strictly containing the following one.) In that case, let $T_n = S_n \setminus S_{n+1}$ (set-theoretic difference), for $n=1,2,3,\ldots$. Then the sets $T_n$ are nonempty and pairwise disjoint. For each subset $J$ (finite or infinite) of the natural numbers, let $$T_J = \bigcup_{n\in J}T_n.$$ There are uncountably many such sets (because there are uncountably many subsets of the natural numbers), they are all different, and they all belong to $A$. Therefore $A$ is uncountable.

Case 2. There are no infinite descending chains in $A$. In that case, every descending chain $S_1 \supset S_2 \supset S_3 \supset \ldots\supset S_n$ of nonempty elements of $A$ must terminate in a minimal nonempty element $S_n$ of $A$. There must be infinitely many such atoms in $A$ (otherwise $A$ would be finite), and these atoms must be pairwise disjoint. As in Case 1, you can construct uncountably many elements of $A$ by taking unions of the atoms.
 
Opalg said:
Case 2. There are no infinite descending chains in $A$. In that case, every descending chain $S_1 \supset S_2 \supset S_3 \supset \ldots\supset S_n$ of nonempty elements of $A$ must terminate in a minimal nonempty element $S_n$ of $A$. There must be infinitely many such atoms in $A$ (otherwise $A$ would be finite), and these atoms must be pairwise disjoint. As in Case 1, you can construct uncountably many elements of $A$ by taking unions of the atoms.

Could you explain me further the second case?? (Wondering)

What does "There must be infinitely many such atoms in $A$ " mean ?? (Wondering)
 
Hi,
Opalg has given you an excellent outline for a proof. If you still have questions, here is my fleshing out of her proof:

ilzrbk.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K