Understanding the Definition of Stopping Times in Set Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter cappadonza
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the definition of the set \mathcal{S} in set theory, specifically regarding the conditions for an element A to be a member. It explains that for A to belong to \mathcal{S}, the intersection of A with each set B_n must be in the corresponding collection \mathcal{F}_n for all natural numbers n. The correct interpretation is that if A intersects with B_1, B_2, etc., and these intersections are in their respective collections, then A is included in \mathcal{S}. This highlights the necessity of satisfying the condition for all n, rather than just one. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping the properties of stopping times in set theory.
cappadonza
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hi this is more of a set theory question really, I'm a bit confused,

say \mathcal{F} is collections of sets, and \mathcal{F}_n is a sequence of sub collections of sets and say B_{1}, B_{2} ... is a sequence of sets
what does the following mean \mathcal{S} = \{ A \in \mathcal{F} \colon A \cap B_{n} \in \mathcal{F}_n \forall n \in \mathbb{N} \}

for an element to be a member of the set \mathcal{S} which of the conditons must be statisfy
does this mean if A \cap B_{1} \in \mathcal{F}_1 , \space A \cap B_{2} \in \mathcal{F}_2 ... then it belongs to the set or
does it mean all these conditons must be met of it to be a members of the set A \cap B_{1} \in \mathcal{F}_1 , \space A \cap B_{1} \in \mathcal{F}_2 , \space A \cap B_{1} \in \mathcal{F}_3 ... for each B_{1}, B_{2} ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first is the correct interpretation, if A \cap B_1\in\mathcal{F}_1 and A \cap B_2\in\mathcal{F}_2, etc., for all n = 1, 2,..., then A is in the collection.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K