Difference between revisions of "Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring"

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Saving work)
m (FINALLY DONE)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
* {{M|1=\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))=\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}} for a system of sets, {{M|S}}.
 
* {{M|1=\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))=\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}} for a system of sets, {{M|S}}.
 
Both are hereditary, and both are {{sigma|rings}}.
 
Both are hereditary, and both are {{sigma|rings}}.
==Showing {{M|1=\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))=\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}} (or not)==
 
  
 +
{{Note|The result is true!}}
 +
 +
{{Todo|Make a theorem out of this!}}
 +
==Showing {{M|1=\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))=\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}==
 +
Which way first?
 +
==={{M|1=\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))\subseteq\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}===
 +
* Let {{M|A\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}} be given. Then:
 +
** {{M|1=\exists B\in\sigma_R(S)[A\in\mathcal{P}(B)]}}
 +
*** Notice that {{M|S\subseteq\mathcal{H}(S)}} thus:
 +
**** {{M|\sigma_R(S)\subseteq\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}
 +
*** So {{M|B\in\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}
 +
** As {{M|\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}} is hereditary {{M|\forall C\in\mathcal{P}(B)[C\in\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}
 +
*** So {{M|A\in\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}
 +
* This shows {{M|1=\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))\subseteq\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}
 +
==={{M|1=\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))\subseteq\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}}===
 +
* Let {{M|A\in\sigma_R(\mathcal{H}(S))}}, then, either (by fact 3):
 +
*# {{M|A\in\mathcal{H}(S)}}
 +
*#* This means: {{M|1=\exists B\in S[A\in\mathcal{P}(B)]}} (also said as: {{M|\exists B\in S[A\subseteq B]}})
 +
*#* But {{M|S\subseteq\sigma_R(S)}}, thus:
 +
*#** {{M|B\in\sigma_R(S)}}
 +
*#* But {{M|\sigma_R(S)\subseteq\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}} thus:
 +
*#** {{M|B\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}}
 +
*#* As {{M|\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}} is hereditary, all subsets of {{M|B}} are in it.
 +
*#* As {{M|A\in\mathcal{P}(B)}} we see {{M|A\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}} - this completes this half of the proof.
 +
*# {{MSeq|A_n|in=\mathcal{H}(S)|pre=\exists|post=[\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n=A]}}
 +
*#* Using part 1 we see that: {{M|1=\forall i\in\mathbb{N}[A_i\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))]}}
 +
*#** But we know {{M|\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}} is a {{sigma|ring}}, thus closed under countable union
 +
*#* Thus {{M|1=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}}
 +
*#** But {{M|1=A:=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n}} so
 +
*#* {{M|A\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}}
 +
* We have shown that in either case, {{M|A\in\mathcal{H}(\sigma_R(S))}}
 
==[[Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Facts|Facts]]==
 
==[[Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Facts|Facts]]==
 
{{:Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Facts}}
 
{{:Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Facts}}
 
==[[Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Proof of facts|Proof of facts]]==
 
==[[Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Proof of facts|Proof of facts]]==
 
{{:Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Proof of facts}}
 
{{:Notes:Hereditary sigma-ring/Proof of facts}}
 +
 +
 +
  
  
  
 
{{Todo|It seems, "hereditary sigma-ring" is the same as "sigma-ideal".}}
 
{{Todo|It seems, "hereditary sigma-ring" is the same as "sigma-ideal".}}

Revision as of 03:14, 8 April 2016

I'm writing down some "facts" so I don't keep redoing them on paper.

What I want to show

  • H(σR(S))=σR(H(S)) for a system of sets, S.

Both are hereditary, and both are σ-rings.

The result is true!



TODO: Make a theorem out of this!


Showing H(σR(S))=σR(H(S))

Which way first?

H(σR(S))σR(H(S))

  • Let AH(σR(S)) be given. Then:
    • BσR(S)[AP(B)]
      • Notice that SH(S) thus:
        • σR(S)σR(H(S))
      • So BσR(H(S))
    • As σR(H(S)) is hereditary CP(B)[CσR(H(S))
      • So AσR(H(S))
  • This shows H(σR(S))σR(H(S))

σR(H(S))H(σR(S))

  • Let AσR(H(S)), then, either (by fact 3):
    1. AH(S)
      • This means: BS[AP(B)] (also said as: BS[AB])
      • But SσR(S), thus:
        • BσR(S)
      • But σR(S)H(σR(S)) thus:
        • BH(σR(S))
      • As H(σR(S)) is hereditary, all subsets of B are in it.
      • As AP(B) we see AH(σR(S)) - this completes this half of the proof.
    2. (An)n=1H(S)[n=1An=A]
      • Using part 1 we see that: iN[AiH(σR(S))]
        • But we know H(σR(S)) is a σ-ring, thus closed under countable union
      • Thus n=1AnH(σR(S))
        • But A:=n=1An so
      • AH(σR(S))
  • We have shown that in either case, AH(σR(S))

Facts

  1. An hereditary system is a sigma-ring it is closed under countable unions.
    • Thus σR(H(S)) is just H(S) with the additional property:
      • (An)n=1H(S)[n=1AnσR(H(S))]
  2. H(R) is a σ-ring (for any σ-ring, R)
    • This means σR(H(R))=H(R)
    • It also means H(σR(S)) is a σ-ring
  3. σR(H(S)) is just H(S) closed under countable union.
  4. σR(H(S)) is hereditary

Proof of facts

  1. An hereditary system is a sigma-ring it is closed under countable unions.
    1. Hereditary system is a sigma-ring closed under countable unions
      • It is a σ-ring which means it is closed under countable unions. Done
    2. A hereditary system closed under countable union it is a σ-ring
      1. closed under set-subtraction
        • Let A,BH for some hereditary system H. Then:
          • ABA, but H contains A and therefore all subsets of A
        • Thus H is closed under set subtraction.
      2. Closed under countable union is given.
  2. H(R) is a σ-ring (for any σ-ring, R)
    1. It is already shown that a hereditary system is closed under set subtraction, only remains to be shown closed under countable union
    2. Closed under countable union
      • Let (An)n=1H(R) (we need to show n=1AnH(R))
        • This means, for each AnH(R) there is a BnR with AnBn thus:
          • (An)n=1H(R)(Bn)n=1RiN[AiBi]
        • However R is a σ-ring, thus:
          • Define B:=n=1Bn, notice BR
        • But a union of subsets is a subset of the union, thus:
          • n=1Ann=1Bn:=B, thus
            • n=1AnB
          • BUT H(R) contains all subsets of all things in R, thus contains all subsets of B.
        • Thus n=1AnH(R)
      • Thus H(R) is closed under countable union.
  3. σR(H(S)) is just H(S) closed under countable union.
    • Follows from fact 1. As H(S) is an hereditary system, the sigma-ring generated by it (the smallest sigma ring containing H(S) is just the set with whatever is needed to close it under the operators)
  4. σR(H(S)) is hereditary
    • Let AσR(H(S)) be given. We want to show that BP(A) that BσR(H(S)).
      1. If AH(S), then BP(A)[BH(S) but BH(S)BσR(H(S))
        • We're done in this case.
      2. OTHERWISE: (An)n=1H(S)[n=1An=A] (by fact 3)
        • Let BP(A) be given.
          • Define a new sequence, (Bn)n=1H(S), where Bi:=AiB
            • AiB is a subset of Ai and AiH(S), as "hereditary" means "contains all subsets of" AiBAi thus AiB:=BiH(S)
          • Clearly B=n=1Bn (as BA and A=n=1An)
          • As σR(H(S) contains all countable unions of things in H(S) we know:
            • n=1Bn=BσR(H(S))
        • We have shown BσR(H(S))
    • We have completed the proof





TODO: It seems, "hereditary sigma-ring" is the same as "sigma-ideal".