bonfire09 said:
yeah I am talking about advanced mathematics. I am using this book to help me transition better into advanced math like intro to real analysis and abstract algebra.
Suppose you have a set, call it A.
Suppose you have another set. Ok, call it B.
Now suppose you have a LOT of sets. You can call them A, B, C, ...
Or you could call them A
1, A
2, A
3, ...
The latter notation using numeric subscripts is more convenient when you are discussing a lot of sets at the same time.
So let's say we have a countably infinite collection of sets, A
1, A
2, A
3, ...
We can think of the subscripting as a function from the natural number to some large collection of sets. In other words we have a function that for each number n, gives you the set A
n. That's how we think of an infinite collection of indexed sets.
Now that we've noticed that a collection of indexed sets can be thought as a function from an indexing set to some other collection of sets; then there's no reason the indexing set can't be more general than the natural numbers.
What if for every real number \alpha, we had some set A_{\alpha}. Then we'd have an uncountable collection of sets, indexed by the reals.
Can we think of an example of something like that? Sure. Just let A_{\alpha} be the set of reals less than or equal to \alpha.
So A_{6} is the set of reals less than or equal to 6; A_{\pi} is the set of all reals less than or equal to \pi.
All this is just a conceptual framework for an idea that's already familiar. If we had a lot of sets to keep track of, we'd assign each one a number. The assignment can be thought of as a function from an index set to some collection of sets. The index set is commonly the natural numbers; but in general the index set could be any set. That's everything you need to know about indexed sets.