Smallest Sigma Algebra .... Axler, Example 2.28 ....

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Example Sigma
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around verifying Example 2.28 from Sheldon Axler's book on measure theory, specifically focusing on the smallest σ-algebra containing a given collection of sets. Participants are exploring the properties of the proposed σ-algebra and how it relates to the original collection of sets.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks assistance in verifying that the smallest σ-algebra on a set X containing a collection A is the set of all subsets E of X such that E is countable or X \setminus E is countable.
  • Some participants suggest defining the σ-algebra as S = {E ⊆ X: E is countable or E^c is countable} and argue for its properties as a σ-algebra containing A.
  • Another participant proposes a similar definition but emphasizes finite sets, suggesting S = {E ⊆ X: |E| < ∞ or |E^c| < ∞} and outlines steps to prove it is a σ-algebra.
  • There is a discussion about demonstrating that the union of countable sets remains countable and how this relates to the properties of the σ-algebra.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their earlier definition of S and corrects it, reiterating the importance of showing that the union of sequences in S remains in S.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the completeness of their proofs and seek further clarification on the relationship between S and the σ-algebra generated by A.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants have not reached a consensus on the definitions and properties of the proposed σ-algebra. There are competing definitions and approaches, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the completeness of the proofs and the relationship between the different sets defined.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted potential limitations in their definitions and proofs, including the need to clarify assumptions and the implications of countable unions. The discussion reflects ongoing refinement of ideas rather than settled conclusions.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
TL;DR
I need help in order to make a meaningful start on verifying the first part of Axler, Example 28 ...
I am reading Sheldon Axler's book: Measure, Integration & Real Analysis ... and I am focused on Chapter 2: Measures ...

I need help in order to make a meaningful start on verifying the first part of Axler, Example 28 ...

The relevant text reads as follows:
Axler - Borel Subsets of R ... including Example 2.28 .png
Can someone please help me to make a meaningful start on verifying Example 2,28 ... that is, to show that the smallest ##\sigma##-algebra on ##X## containing ##\mathcal{A}## is the set of all subsets ##E## of ##X## such that ##E## is countable or ##X \setminus E## is countable ... ...
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should show an attempt.

Can you at least show that ##\mathcal{S}:=\{E \subseteq X: E \mathrm{\ countable \ or \ E^c \ countable}\}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra containing ##\mathcal{A}##? Why is it the smallest?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Math_QED said:
You should show an attempt.

Can you at least show that ##\mathcal{S}:=\{E \subseteq X: |E| < \infty \lor |E^c| < \infty\}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra containing ##\mathcal{A}##? Why is it the smallest?
Given that ##X## is a set and ##\mathcal{A} = \{ \{ x \} : x \in X \}## ... ...

Require to demonstrate that ##\mathcal{S}:=\{E \subseteq X: |E| < \infty \lor |E^c| < \infty\}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra containing ##\mathcal{A}##Proof:

First show that ##\mathcal{S}## contains ##\mathcal{A}## ...

Now ##E \subseteq \mathcal{A} \Longrightarrow E = \{ x \}## for some ##x \in X## ...

... ##\Longrightarrow \mid E \mid = 0 \lt \infty##

... ##\Longrightarrow E \subseteq \mathcal{S}##
Now ... show ##\mathcal{S}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra ...

##\bullet## Require ##\emptyset \in \mathcal{S}## ...

... suppose ##E = \emptyset## ...

... then ##\mid E \mid = 0 \lt \infty## ...

... so ##\emptyset \in \mathcal{S}## ...##\bullet## Require that if ##E \in \mathcal{S}## then ##E^c \in \mathcal{S}## ...

Suppose ##E \in \mathcal{S}## ...

Then ##E^c \in \mathcal{S}## ... since ##\mid E^c \mid = 0 \lt \infty## or ##\mid (E^c)^c \mid = \mid E \mid \lt \infty## ... one of which is true since ##E \in \mathcal{S}## ...

... so ##E \in \mathcal{S}## then ##E^c \in \mathcal{S}## ...
##\bullet## Require that if ##E_1, E_2##, ... ... is a sequence of elements of ##\mathcal{S}## ... then ##\bigcup_{ k = 1 }^{ \infty } \in \mathcal{S}## ...

Assume that ##E_1, E_2##, ... ... is a sequence of elements of ##\mathcal{S}## ...

Then ##\mid E_1 \mid = n_1 \lt \infty## ... or ... ##\mid E_1^c \mid = m_1 \lt \infty## ... ...

... and ##\mid E_2 \mid = n_2 \lt \infty## ... or ... ##\mid E_2^c \mid = m_2 \lt \infty## ... ...

.. and so on ...

... But how to proceed from here ...?

Can you help further ...?

Peter

===========================================================================

My thoughts on proceeding ...We could divide ##E_1, E_2##, ... ... into two subsequences ##E_{k_1}, E_{k_2}##, ... and ##E_{h_1}, E_{h_2}, ...## where the subsequence ##E_{k_1}, E_{k_2}##, ... is composed of all those elements of ##\mathcal{S}## ... where ##\mid E_k \mid \lt \infty## ... and where the subsequence ##E_{h_1}, E_{h_2}##, ... is composed of all those elements of ##\mathcal{S}## ... where ##\mid E_k^c \mid \lt \infty## ... and try to show using countable additivity that the unions of the elements of both subsequences are less than infinity and try to relate these results to the union of the elements of E_1, E_2, ... ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 587159
I'm very sorry. I made a mistake in my definition of ##\mathcal{S}## in post #2 (now fixed), which is probably why your attempt doesn't work because my definition of ##\mathcal{S}## contained a mistake. I guess that happens when I give hints without writing down anything on paper ;)

But as you observed correctly, the crux is to show that if ##(E_n)_n## is a sequence in ##\mathcal{S}##, then ##E:=\bigcup_n E_n## is also in ##\mathcal{S}##.

Let us show this. Supose that ##E_n## is countable for all ##n##, then ##E## is also countable since countable unions of countable sets remain countable. In that case we are done. In the other case, there exists ##m## such that ##E_m^c## is countable! But then ##E^c = \bigcap_n E_n^c \subseteq E_m^c## is countable so again ##E \in \mathcal{S}##. The other axioms of ##\sigma##-algebra are trivially satisfied and I won't write them down anymore.

Hence, we have established that ##\mathcal{S}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra containing ##\mathcal{A}##. This implies that the ##\sigma##-algebra generated by ##\mathcal{A}##, write it as ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})##, is contained in ##\mathcal{S}##, that is ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A}) \subseteq \mathcal{S}## (why?).

Now, you also have to show that the other inclusion ##\mathcal{S}\subseteq \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})## holds. Can you see why that is true?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Math_QED said:
I'm very sorry. I made a mistake in my definition of ##\mathcal{S}## in post #2 (now fixed), which is probably why your attempt doesn't work because my definition of ##\mathcal{S}## contained a mistake. I guess that happens when I give hints without writing down anything on paper ;)

But as you observed correctly, the crux is to show that if ##(E_n)_n## is a sequence in ##\mathcal{S}##, then ##E:=\bigcup_n E_n## is also in ##\mathcal{S}##.

Let us show this. Supose that ##E_n## is countable for all ##n##, then ##E## is also countable since countable unions of countable sets remain countable. In that case we are done. In the other case, there exists ##m## such that ##E_m^c## is countable! But then ##E^c = \bigcap_n E_n^c \subseteq E_m^c## is countable so again ##E \in \mathcal{S}##. The other axioms of ##\sigma##-algebra are trivially satisfied and I won't write them down anymore.

Hence, we have established that ##\mathcal{S}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra containing ##\mathcal{A}##. This implies that the ##\sigma##-algebra generated by ##\mathcal{A}##, write it as ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})##, is contained in ##\mathcal{S}##, that is ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A}) \subseteq \mathcal{S}## (why?).

Now, you also have to show that the other inclusion ##\mathcal{S}\subseteq \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})## holds. Can you see why that is true?
No problem ...

I have to say your help has been invaluable to me ...

Reflecting on what you have written ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
Math_QED said:
I'm very sorry. I made a mistake in my definition of ##\mathcal{S}## in post #2 (now fixed), which is probably why your attempt doesn't work because my definition of ##\mathcal{S}## contained a mistake. I guess that happens when I give hints without writing down anything on paper ;)

But as you observed correctly, the crux is to show that if ##(E_n)_n## is a sequence in ##\mathcal{S}##, then ##E:=\bigcup_n E_n## is also in ##\mathcal{S}##.

Let us show this. Supose that ##E_n## is countable for all ##n##, then ##E## is also countable since countable unions of countable sets remain countable. In that case we are done. In the other case, there exists ##m## such that ##E_m^c## is countable! But then ##E^c = \bigcap_n E_n^c \subseteq E_m^c## is countable so again ##E \in \mathcal{S}##. The other axioms of ##\sigma##-algebra are trivially satisfied and I won't write them down anymore.

Hence, we have established that ##\mathcal{S}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra containing ##\mathcal{A}##. This implies that the ##\sigma##-algebra generated by ##\mathcal{A}##, write it as ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})##, is contained in ##\mathcal{S}##, that is ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A}) \subseteq \mathcal{S}## (why?).

Now, you also have to show that the other inclusion ##\mathcal{S}\subseteq \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})## holds. Can you see why that is true?
We have that ##X## is a set and ##\mathcal{A}## is the set of subsets of ##X## that contain exactly one element of ##X##; that is

##\mathcal{A} = \{ \{ x \} : x \in X \}##

Now the ##\sigma##-algebra of ##X## generated by ##\mathcal{A}##, denoted ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})##, is the intersection of all ##\sigma##-algebras of ##X## that contain ##\mathcal{A}##.

Therefore, given ##\mathcal{S}## is a ##\sigma##-algebra of ##X## that contains ##\mathcal{A}##, we have that ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A}) \subseteq \mathcal{S}## ...

But ... ##\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})## is a ##\sigma##-algebra of X that contains ##\mathcal{A}## ... and so contains all the countable subsets of ##X## and their complements ... so ##\mathcal{S}\subseteq \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{A})##...is that correct ... ?

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K