2
$\begingroup$

Possible Duplicate:
Sigma algebra question
The union of a strictly increasing sequence of $\sigma$-algebras is not a $\sigma$-algebra

If $F_n$ is an increasing sequence of sigma fields then $F = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty F_n$ is a field. Please help me find a counter-example to show that $F$ may not be a sigma-field.

  • 2
    Duplicity of a previous question aside, you should really try and give meaningful titles (this is not the first bad title you give). "Searching for a Counter example" could mean *anything*. In fact if I wouldn't know I could have guessed the tag was wrong as well. Giving a title which hints on the topic of the question and on some occasion might help you find similar posts via the automatic suggestions when asking your question.2012-02-11
  • 0
    It is clearly not a duplicate of the previous question. It’s a consequence, but a much easier result that can very usefully be answered independently.2012-02-11
  • 3
    Here's [another question of which this is a duplicate](http://math.stackexchange.com/a/5121/742).2012-02-11
  • 0
    @AsafKaragila Thanks mate i shall keep your feedback in mind when thinking of future titles.2012-02-11
  • 0
    @Arturo: Your answer there is a much better fit; I’m now voting to close.2012-02-11

2 Answers 2

3

Let $\Omega$ be the set of all infinite sequences in which each term is $0$ or $1$. Let $F_n$ be $$\lbrace A\subseteq\Omega : \forall\omega\in\Omega\ (\omega \in A\iff \text{some condition on the first $n$ terms of }\omega\text{ holds}) \rbrace. $$ Let $F$ be the union. Let $\omega_k$ be the $k$th term in the seqence $\omega$. Then $$ \begin{align} & \{ \omega\in\Omega : \omega_1 = 1 \} \in F_1 \subseteq F \\ & \{ \omega\in\Omega : \omega_1 = \omega_2 = 1 \} \in F_2 \subseteq F \\ & \{ \omega\in\Omega : \omega_1 = \omega_2= \omega_3 = 1 \} \in F_3 \subseteq F \\ & \cdots\cdots \end{align} $$ But the intersection of these sets contains only the sequence in which every term is $1$, and that is not a member of $F$.

  • 1
    Actually if it is not too much to ask i would really love u provided reasoning behind various choices you made in constructing your brilliant counter example. I would genuinely great full to be honest i do n't care so much for what the final answer ended up being this is not for school assignment, i want to learn how to think like you and build my own. Your step by step reasoning such as why did we choose omega to be infinite sequences of 0 or 1 and in the sigma algebra const "if some condition on the first n terms of ω holds". Your help would be very much appreciated.2012-02-11
  • 1
    I was just trying to find what seemed like the simplest possible example. The first sigma-algebra just splits the space in half; the second splits those halves in half; the third splits all four of those parts in half, and so on.2012-02-12
  • 1
    @MichaelHardy Why is $\{\omega \in \Omega: \omega_k = 1, \quad \forall k \in \mathbb{N}\}$ not a member of $F$?2012-10-28
  • 1
    @Elements : $F$ is defined as the union of a certain family of sets. A set is a member of the union if and only if it is a member of at least one member of that family. For this set to be a member of $F_1\cup F_2\cup F_3\cup\cdots$, there would have to be some positive integer $n$ such that this set is a member of $F_n$. In order to be a member of $F_n$, it would have to be characterized by a condition on the first $n$ terms.2012-10-28
  • 0
    But how is the sequence {1,1,1,...} NOT in every F_n? It satisfies the conditions for each F_n that the first n elements are equal to 1.2013-09-08
  • 0
    @Glassjawed : My answer states that that sequence _is_ in every $F_n$, i.e. I said that point is in their intersection. Then I said that the set containing only that one point---the sequence of $1$s---is not a member of $F$. The reason it's not a member of $F$ is that it's not a member of any $F_n$.2013-09-08
  • 0
    How is this set not a member of F? I thought that the definition of A being a subset of B was that all elements of A are in B. Wouldn't the sets F_n where the first n terms are fixed at 1 include SUBSETS where EVERY element is 1? I just don't see the difference between subset inclusion and element inclusion.2013-09-08
  • 0
    To see why it's not a member of $F$, read the definition of $F$. It a union of other sets. A set is a member of the union if and only if it's a member of at least one of those sets. Which one could it be a member of?2013-09-08
  • 0
    Why would it not be a member of every F_n? Generally could the element of the set be in every F_n but the set itself not be a subset?2013-09-08
  • 0
    It's not in _any_ $F_n$. Membership in $F_n$ is decided by the first $n$ components. There's no condition you can impose on the first $n$ components that will force all of the components beyond that to be equal to $1$.2013-09-08
  • 0
    Do you need to force all the components beyond the nth to equal 1 though? I thought you could take the condition that the first n components are 1, use that as our subset of $F_n$, and then say that the sequence of infinite 1's is a subset of this. Then our set is a subset of $F_n.$ Where am I going wrong here?2013-09-08
  • 0
    I understand your explanation--I just wonder where my logic is wrong.2013-09-08
  • 0
    I'm not sure what your reasoning is.2013-09-08
  • 0
    I'm saying that the sequence of infinite ones is an element of the set of sequences with the first $n$ components equal to 1, which is a subset of $F_n$. Therefore, the set consisting solely of the sequence of infinite ones is a subset of $F_n$. I just don't understand what's wrong with that argument because that just follows from the statement that $A\subseteq B$ iff $x\in A \rightarrow x\in B$ for all $x\in A.$2013-09-08
  • 0
    The set of all sequences whose first $n$ terms are $1$ is a member of $F_n$. This sequence is a member of that set. But the set whose _only_ member is this sequence is not a member of $F_n$, for reasons I explained above. Your statement beginning with "Therefore" simply has nothing to support it. Also, you shouldn't say "infinite ones" if you mean "infinitely many ones".2013-09-08
4

Take $\Omega=[0,1)$ and $\mathcal F_n$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by intervals of the form $\left[k2^{-n},(k+1)2^{-n}\right)$, $k\in\{0, \ldots,2^n-1\}$ . Then $(0,1)=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}[2^{-(n+1)},2^{-n})$ and $[2^{-(n+1)},2^{-n})\in\mathcal F_{n+1} $ for all $n$, but $(0,1)\notin \mathcal F_n$ for all $n$.