Proving an Infinite $\sigma-$Algebra is Uncountable

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

An infinite $\sigma$-algebra is proven to be uncountable through two distinct cases. In Case 1, if the $\sigma$-algebra contains an infinite descending chain of nonempty subsets, one can construct uncountably many distinct sets using the set-theoretic difference, leading to the conclusion that the $\sigma$-algebra is uncountable. In Case 2, if no infinite descending chains exist, the presence of infinitely many pairwise disjoint atoms allows for the construction of uncountably many elements by taking unions of these atoms, thus confirming the uncountability of the $\sigma$-algebra.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of $\sigma$-algebras in measure theory
  • Familiarity with set-theoretic operations, particularly set difference and unions
  • Knowledge of infinite sets and their properties
  • Basic concepts of countability and uncountability in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of $\sigma$-algebras in measure theory
  • Learn about set-theoretic operations and their implications in proofs
  • Explore the concept of atoms in a $\sigma$-algebra and their significance
  • Investigate the implications of countability and uncountability in set theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in measure theory, students studying advanced mathematics, and anyone interested in the foundational aspects of set theory and $\sigma$-algebras.

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