Question on a particular collection of sets

  • Thread starter Thread starter turiya
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
turiya
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Let {X} be a set. Let {\mathcal{G}} be a non-empty collection of subsets of {X} such that {\mathcal{G}} is closed under finite intersections. Assume that there exists a sequence {X_h \in \mathcal{G}} such that {X = \cup_h X_h}. Let {\mathcal{M}} be the smallest collection of susbsets of {X} containing {\mathcal{G}} such that the following are true:If {E_h \in \mathcal{M}} {\forall h \in \mathbb{N}} and
{E_h} {\uparrow} {E} then {E \in \mathcal{M}}

If {E}, {F}, {E \cup F \in \mathcal {M}} then {E \cap F \in \mathcal {M}}

If {E \in \mathcal {M}} then {E^c \in \mathcal{M}}

Does {X \in \mathcal{M}} ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You'll only need to show that if A,B\in \mathcal{G}, then A\cup B\in\mathcal{M}.

For this, use the law of DeMorgan: A\cup B=(A^c\cap B^c)^c.
 
Micromass: I am not sure if it works. Can you explain in more detail?
 
What are you unsure of? What did you already try?
 
If A, B \in \mathcal {G} then A \cap B \in \mathcal{G} as \mathcal{G} is closed under finite intersections and therefore A \cup B \in \mathcal {M} using
the DeMorgan's laws and property II of \mathcal {M} as you have pointed out.

I could not prove that if A, B, C, D, E\in \mathcal {G} then A \cup B \cup C \cup D \cup E \in \mathcal {M}. In other words, the union of some sets (which belong to \mathcal {G}) belongs to \mathcal {M} only when the number of sets is less than five.

So, \cup_{h=0}^n X_h does not belong to \mathcal {M} and I could not
use property one (of the three properties of \mathcal {M} listed originally) to prove that X indeed belongs to \mathcal {M}

I might have made a fatal error somewhere though.
 
Last edited:
Alright, I see your problem. Have you tried finding counterexamples?

For example,

\mathcal{G}=\{\{0\}\cup\{n\}~\vert~n\in \mathbb{N}\}...
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top