DOCSLIB.ORG

Set and Element Cardinality of a Set Empty Set (Null Set) Finite And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Set and Element Cardinality of a Set Empty Set (Null Set) Finite And Definition Definition Set and element Cardinality of a set Sets Sets Definition Definition Empty set (null set) Finite and infinite sets Sets Sets Definition Definition Ordered pair / n-tuple Cartesian product Sets Sets Definition Definition Subset Proper subset Sets Sets Definition Definition Power set Partition Sets Sets The cardinality of a set is the number of elements in A set is a collection of objects; the objects in the set the set. are called elements. The cardinality of the set A is denoted by jAj or #A. If A is a set, and a is an element of A, then we write a 2 A. A set is finite if its cardinality is finite, that is, the set contains finitely many elements. The empty set is the set that contains zero elements. A set is infinite if it contains infinitely many The empty set is denoted by ?. elements. If A and B are sets, the cartesian product A × B is the set of ordered pairs where the first element is An ordered pair is an ordered list of two elements. from A, and the second is from B. More generally, an ordered n-tuple is an ordered list A × B = f(a; b): a 2 A; b 2 Bg: of n elements. The standard notation is to use a comma separated list enclosed by parenthesis: (a1; a2; : : : ; an). (a; b) 2 A × B , a 2 A and b 2 B The set B is a proper subset of A if B is a subset of A set A is a subset of a set B if every element of A is A that is not equal A, and we write B ⊂ A. an element of B. B ⊂ A , B ⊆ A and B 6= A A ⊆ B , x 2 A ) x 2 B Let A be a set, and let P ⊆ P(A). The set P is a The power set of a set A is the set of all subsets of A. partition of A if The power set of A is denoted by P(A). 1. S X = A; X2P P(A) = fB : B ⊆ Ag 2. if X1;X2 2 P , then X1 \ X2 = ? , X1 6= X2. Definition Definition Set equality Union Sets Sets Definition Definition Finite and infinite union Intersection Sets Sets Definition Definition Finite and infinite intersection Set difference Sets Sets Definition Theorem Disjoint sets Double containment principle Sets Sets Definition Theorem Complement De Morgan's laws Sets Sets The union of two sets, A and B, is the set of all element in A or in B. The union of these sets is denoted by A [ B. Two sets, A and B, are equal if all the elements of A are elements of B and vice versa. A [ B = fx : x 2 A or x 2 Bg A = B , x 2 A if and only if x 2 B x 2 A [ B , x 2 A or x 2 B A finite union is the union of finitely many sets. An The intersection of two sets, A and B, is the set of all infinite union is the union of infinitely many sets. element in A and in B. Let A1;A2;A3;::: be sets, then The intersection of these sets is denoted by A \ B. n [ A \ B = fx : x 2 A and x 2 Bg Ai = fx : x 2 Ai for some 1 ≤ i ≤ ng i=1 [ x 2 A \ B , x 2 A and x 2 B Ai = fx : x 2 Ai for some i 2 Ng i2N A finite intersection is the intersection of finitely many sets. An infinite intersection is the intersection If A and B are sets, the, is the difference A − B is the of infinitely many sets. set of elements in A that are not in B. Let A1;A2;A3;::: be sets, then A − B = fx : x 2 A and x2 = Bg n \ Ai = fx : x 2 Ai for all 1 ≤ i ≤ ng i=1 x 2 A − B , x 2 A and x 62 B \ Ai = fx : x 2 Ai for all i 2 Ng i2N Let A and B be sets. Then A = B if and only if A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A. Two sets, A and B, are disjoint if A \ B = ?. A = B , A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A The complement of a set A is the set of all elements that are not in A, and is denoted by Ac or A. For any sets A and B, If A ⊆ B, then the complement of A in B is the set of elements in B that are not in A, i.e. Ac = B − A. (A \ B)c = Ac [ Bc; (A [ B)c = Ac \ Bc: Ac = fx : x2 = Ag x 2 Ac , x 62 A Definition Definition Statement Logical statement Logic Logic Definition Definition Logical and Logical or Logic Logic Definition Definition Logical negation Implies Logic Logic Definition Definition Converse If and only if Logic Logic Definition Definition Contrapositive Universal quantifier: for all Logic Logic A statement is a sentence or mathematical expression A statement is a sentence or mathematical expression that is definitely true or definitely false. that is definitively true or definitively false. The statement \P or Q" is true if P is true or Q is The statement \P and Q" is true if both P is true true (or both statements are true). The statement \P and Q is true. Otherwise \P and Q" is false. and Q" is false only if both P is false and Q is false. P ^ Q is true , P is true and Q is P _ Q is true , P is true or Q is true true The negation of a statement P is the statement :P . The statement \P implies Q"(P ) Q) is false if P is The statement :P is true if P is true. The statement true and Q is false. Otherwise the statement is true. of :P is false if P is true. P ) Q is false , P is false and Q is P is true (resp. false) ,:P is false (resp. true true) The statement \P if and only if Q"(P , Q) is equivalent to the statement (P ) Q) ^ (Q ) P ). In The converse of P ) Q is the statement Q ) P . In other words, P , Q is true if both P ) Q and general, these two statements are independent, Q ) P are true. meaning that the truthfulness of one statement does P , Q , (P ) Q) ^ (Q ) P ) not determine the truthfulness of the other. The for all/each/every/any statement takes the The contrapositive of the statement \if P , then Q" is form: \for all P , we have Q." In other words, Q is the statement \if :Q, then :P ". These statements true whenever P is true. In this light, \for all" are equivalent, meaning that they are either both statements can often be reworded as \if-then" true or both false. statements (and vice versa). P ) Q ,:Q ):P 8P , we have Q , P ) Q Definition Negation of P ^ Q Existential quantifier: there exists Logic Logic Negation of P _ Q Negation of P ) Q Logic Logic Negation of 8P; we have Q Negation of 9P such that Q Logic Logic Definition Definition Theorem Proof Logic Logic Definition Definition Definition List and entries Logic Counting The there exists statement takes the form: \there exists P such that Q." This statement is true if there is at least one case where P is true and Q is true. (It maybe that there are many cases where P is false but :(P ^ Q) = :P _:Q Q is true.) 9P such that Q , it is sometimes the case that P ) Q :(P ) Q) = P ^ :Q :(P _ Q) = :P ^ :Q :(9P; such that Q) = 8P we have :Q :(8P; we have Q) = 9P; such that :Q A proof of a theorem is a written verification that A theorem is a mathematical statement that is true shows that the theorem is definitely and and can be (and has been) verified as true. unequivocally true. A list is an ordered sequence of objects. The objects A definition is an exact, unambiguous explanation of in the list are called entries. Unlike sets, the order of the meaning of a mathematical word or phrase. entries matters, and entries may be repeated. Definition Definition List length List equality Counting Counting Definition Theorem Empty list Multiplication principle Counting Counting Definition Definition Factorial n choose k Counting Counting Theorem Theorem Binomial theorem Inclusion-exclusion Counting Counting Theorem Definition Addition principle Even Counting Counting Two lists L and M are equal if they have the same The length of a list is the number of entries in the length, and the i-th entry of L is the i-th entry of M. list. Suppose in making a list of length n there are ai possible choices for the i-th entry. Then the total The empty list is the list with no entries, and is number of different lists that can be made in this way denoted by (). is a1a2a3 ··· an. If n and k are integers, and 0 ≤ k ≤ n, then If n is a non-negative integer, then n! is the number of non-repetitive lists of length n that can be made n n! = : from n symbols. Thus 0! = 1, and if n > 1, then n! is k k!(n − k)! the product of all integers from 1 to n. That is, if n > 1, then n! = n(n − 1)(n − 2) ··· 2 · 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lectures on Fractal Geometry and Dynamics
    Lectures on fractal geometry and dynamics Michael Hochman∗ March 25, 2012 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Preliminaries 3 3 Dimension 3 3.1 A family of examples: Middle-α Cantor sets . 3 3.2 Minkowski dimension . 4 3.3 Hausdorff dimension . 9 4 Using measures to compute dimension 13 4.1 The mass distribution principle . 13 4.2 Billingsley's lemma . 15 4.3 Frostman's lemma . 18 4.4 Product sets . 22 5 Iterated function systems 24 5.1 The Hausdorff metric . 24 5.2 Iterated function systems . 26 5.3 Self-similar sets . 31 5.4 Self-affine sets . 36 6 Geometry of measures 39 6.1 The Besicovitch covering theorem . 39 6.2 Density and differentiation theorems . 45 6.3 Dimension of a measure at a point . 48 6.4 Upper and lower dimension of measures . 50 ∗Send comments to [email protected] 1 6.5 Hausdorff measures and their densities . 52 1 Introduction Fractal geometry and its sibling, geometric measure theory, are branches of analysis which study the structure of \irregular" sets and measures in metric spaces, primarily d R . The distinction between regular and irregular sets is not a precise one but informally, k regular sets might be understood as smooth sub-manifolds of R , or perhaps Lipschitz graphs, or countable unions of the above; whereas irregular sets include just about 1 everything else, from the middle- 3 Cantor set (still highly structured) to arbitrary d Cantor sets (irregular, but topologically the same) to truly arbitrary subsets of R . d For concreteness, let us compare smooth sub-manifolds and Cantor subsets of R .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory
    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy in Linear Rational Expectations Models
    Journal of Mathematical Economics 40 (2004) 815–830 Determinacy in linear rational expectations models Stéphane Gauthier∗ CREST, Laboratoire de Macroéconomie (Timbre J-360), 15 bd Gabriel Péri, 92245 Malakoff Cedex, France Received 15 February 2002; received in revised form 5 June 2003; accepted 17 July 2003 Available online 21 January 2004 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to assess the relevance of rational expectations solutions to the class of linear univariate models where both the number of leads in expectations and the number of lags in predetermined variables are arbitrary. It recommends to rule out all the solutions that would fail to be locally unique, or equivalently, locally determinate. So far, this determinacy criterion has been applied to particular solutions, in general some steady state or periodic cycle. However solutions to linear models with rational expectations typically do not conform to such simple dynamic patterns but express instead the current state of the economic system as a linear difference equation of lagged states. The innovation of this paper is to apply the determinacy criterion to the sets of coefficients of these linear difference equations. Its main result shows that only one set of such coefficients, or the corresponding solution, is locally determinate. This solution is commonly referred to as the fundamental one in the literature. In particular, in the saddle point configuration, it coincides with the saddle stable (pure forward) equilibrium trajectory. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. JEL classification: C32; E32 Keywords: Rational expectations; Selection; Determinacy; Saddle point property 1. Introduction The rational expectations hypothesis is commonly justified by the fact that individual forecasts are based on the relevant theory of the economic system.
    [Show full text]
  • PROBLEM SET 1. the AXIOM of FOUNDATION Early on in the Book
    PROBLEM SET 1. THE AXIOM OF FOUNDATION Early on in the book (page 6) it is indicated that throughout the formal development ‘set’ is going to mean ‘pure set’, or set whose elements, elements of elements, and so on, are all sets and not items of any other kind such as chairs or tables. This convention applies also to these problems. 1. A set y is called an epsilon-minimal element of a set x if y Î x, but there is no z Î x such that z Î y, or equivalently x Ç y = Ø. The axiom of foundation, also called the axiom of regularity, asserts that any set that has any element at all (any nonempty set) has an epsilon-minimal element. Show that this axiom implies the following: (a) There is no set x such that x Î x. (b) There are no sets x and y such that x Î y and y Î x. (c) There are no sets x and y and z such that x Î y and y Î z and z Î x. 2. In the book the axiom of foundation or regularity is considered only in a late chapter, and until that point no use of it is made of it in proofs. But some results earlier in the book become significantly easier to prove if one does use it. Show, for example, how to use it to give an easy proof of the existence for any sets x and y of a set x* such that x* and y are disjoint (have empty intersection) and there is a bijection (one-to-one onto function) from x to x*, a result called the exchange principle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Choice and Its Implications
    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS KEVIN BARNUM Abstract. In this paper we will look at the Axiom of Choice and some of the various implications it has. These implications include a number of equivalent statements, and also some less accepted ideas. The proofs discussed will give us an idea of why the Axiom of Choice is so powerful, but also so controversial. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. The Axiom of Choice and Its Equivalents 1 2.1. The Axiom of Choice and its Well-known Equivalents 1 2.2. Some Other Less Well-known Equivalents of the Axiom of Choice 3 3. Applications of the Axiom of Choice 5 3.1. Equivalence Between The Axiom of Choice and the Claim that Every Vector Space has a Basis 5 3.2. Some More Applications of the Axiom of Choice 6 4. Controversial Results 10 Acknowledgments 11 References 11 1. Introduction The Axiom of Choice states that for any family of nonempty disjoint sets, there exists a set that consists of exactly one element from each element of the family. It seems strange at first that such an innocuous sounding idea can be so powerful and controversial, but it certainly is both. To understand why, we will start by looking at some statements that are equivalent to the axiom of choice. Many of these equivalences are very useful, and we devote much time to one, namely, that every vector space has a basis. We go on from there to see a few more applications of the Axiom of Choice and its equivalents, and finish by looking at some of the reasons why the Axiom of Choice is so controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Construction of a Set Theory in Coq
    Saarland University Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology I Department of Computer Science Masters Thesis Formal Construction of a Set Theory in Coq submitted by Jonas Kaiser on November 23, 2012 Supervisor Prof. Dr. Gert Smolka Advisor Dr. Chad E. Brown Reviewers Prof. Dr. Gert Smolka Dr. Chad E. Brown Eidesstattliche Erklarung¨ Ich erklare¨ hiermit an Eides Statt, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbststandig¨ verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Statement in Lieu of an Oath I hereby confirm that I have written this thesis on my own and that I have not used any other media or materials than the ones referred to in this thesis. Einverstandniserkl¨ arung¨ Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass meine (bestandene) Arbeit in beiden Versionen in die Bibliothek der Informatik aufgenommen und damit vero¨ffentlicht wird. Declaration of Consent I agree to make both versions of my thesis (with a passing grade) accessible to the public by having them added to the library of the Computer Science Department. Saarbrucken,¨ (Datum/Date) (Unterschrift/Signature) iii Acknowledgements First of all I would like to express my sincerest gratitude towards my advisor, Chad Brown, who supported me throughout this work. His extensive knowledge and insights opened my eyes to the beauty of axiomatic set theory and foundational mathematics. We spent many hours discussing the minute details of the various constructions and he taught me the importance of mathematical rigour. Equally important was the support of my supervisor, Prof. Smolka, who first introduced me to the topic and was there whenever a question arose.
    [Show full text]
  • Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses A
    EQUIVALENTS TO THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND THEIR USES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics California State University, Los Angeles In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Mathematics By James Szufu Yang c 2015 James Szufu Yang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of James Szufu Yang is approved. Mike Krebs, Ph.D. Kristin Webster, Ph.D. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., Committee Chair Grant Fraser, Ph.D., Department Chair California State University, Los Angeles June 2015 iii ABSTRACT Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses By James Szufu Yang In set theory, the Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo. It is an addition to the older Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. We call it Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice and abbreviate it as ZFC. This paper starts with an introduction to the foundations of ZFC set the- ory, which includes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, partially ordered sets (posets), the Cartesian product, the Axiom of Choice, and their related proofs. It then intro- duces several equivalent forms of the Axiom of Choice and proves that they are all equivalent. In the end, equivalents to the Axiom of Choice are used to prove a few fundamental theorems in set theory, linear analysis, and abstract algebra. This paper is concluded by a brief review of the work in it, followed by a few points of interest for further study in mathematics and/or set theory. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Between the two department requirements to complete a master's degree in mathematics − the comprehensive exams and a thesis, I really wanted to experience doing a research and writing a serious academic paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniqueness for the Signature of a Path of Bounded Variation and the Reduced Path Group
    ANNALS OF MATHEMATICS Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group By Ben Hambly and Terry Lyons SECOND SERIES, VOL. 171, NO. 1 January, 2010 anmaah Annals of Mathematics, 171 (2010), 109–167 Uniqueness for the signature of a path of bounded variation and the reduced path group By BEN HAMBLY and TERRY LYONS Abstract We introduce the notions of tree-like path and tree-like equivalence between paths and prove that the latter is an equivalence relation for paths of finite length. We show that the equivalence classes form a group with some similarity to a free group, and that in each class there is a unique path that is tree reduced. The set of these paths is the Reduced Path Group. It is a continuous analogue of the group of reduced words. The signature of the path is a power series whose coefficients are certain tensor valued definite iterated integrals of the path. We identify the paths with trivial signature as the tree-like paths, and prove that two paths are in tree-like equivalence if and only if they have the same signature. In this way, we extend Chen’s theorems on the uniqueness of the sequence of iterated integrals associated with a piecewise regular path to finite length paths and identify the appropriate ex- tended meaning for parametrisation in the general setting. It is suggestive to think of this result as a noncommutative analogue of the result that integrable functions on the circle are determined, up to Lebesgue null sets, by their Fourier coefficients.
    [Show full text]
  • Naïve Set Theory Basic Definitions Naïve Set Theory Is the Non-Axiomatic Treatment of Set Theory
    Naïve Set Theory Basic Definitions Naïve set theory is the non-axiomatic treatment of set theory. In the axiomatic treatment, which we will only allude to at times, a set is an undefined term. For us however, a set will be thought of as a collection of some (possibly none) objects. These objects are called the members (or elements) of the set. We use the symbol "∈" to indicate membership in a set. Thus, if A is a set and x is one of its members, we write x ∈ A and say "x is an element of A" or "x is in A" or "x is a member of A". Note that "∈" is not the same as the Greek letter "ε" epsilon. Basic Definitions Sets can be described notationally in many ways, but always using the set brackets "{" and "}". If possible, one can just list the elements of the set: A = {1,3, oranges, lions, an old wad of gum} or give an indication of the elements: ℕ = {1,2,3, ... } ℤ = {..., -2,-1,0,1,2, ...} or (most frequently in mathematics) using set-builder notation: S = {x ∈ ℝ | 1 < x ≤ 7 } or {x ∈ ℝ : 1 < x ≤ 7 } which is read as "S is the set of real numbers x, such that x is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 7". In some areas of mathematics sets may be denoted by special notations. For instance, in analysis S would be written (1,7]. Basic Definitions Note that sets do not contain repeated elements. An element is either in or not in a set, never "in the set 5 times" for instance.
    [Show full text]
  • Bijections and Infinities 1 Key Ideas
    INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL REASONING Worksheet 6 Bijections and Infinities 1 Key Ideas This week we are going to focus on the notion of bijection. This is a way we have to compare two different sets, and say that they have \the same number of elements". Of course, when sets are finite everything goes smoothly, but when they are not... things get spiced up! But let us start, as usual, with some definitions. Definition 1. A bijection between a set X and a set Y consists of matching elements of X with elements of Y in such a way that every element of X has a unique match, and every element of Y has a unique match. Example 1. Let X = f1; 2; 3g and Y = fa; b; cg. An example of a bijection between X and Y consists of matching 1 with a, 2 with b and 3 with c. A NOT example would match 1 and 2 with a and 3 with c. In this case, two things fail: a has two partners, and b has no partner. Note: if you are familiar with these concepts, you may have recognized a bijection as a function between X and Y which is both injective (1:1) and surjective (onto). We will revisit the notion of bijection in this language in a few weeks. For now, we content ourselves of a slightly lower level approach. However, you may be a little unhappy with the use of the word \matching" in a mathematical definition. Here is a more formal definition for the same concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Nilsequences, Null-Sequences, and Multiple Correlation Sequences
    Nilsequences, null-sequences, and multiple correlation sequences A. Leibman Department of Mathematics The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210, USA e-mail: [email protected] April 3, 2013 Abstract A (d-parameter) basic nilsequence is a sequence of the form ψ(n) = f(anx), n ∈ Zd, where x is a point of a compact nilmanifold X, a is a translation on X, and f ∈ C(X); a nilsequence is a uniform limit of basic nilsequences. If X = G/Γ be a compact nilmanifold, Y is a subnilmanifold of X, (g(n))n∈Zd is a polynomial sequence in G, and f ∈ C(X), we show that the sequence ϕ(n) = g(n)Y f is the sum of a basic nilsequence and a sequence that converges to zero in uniformR density (a null-sequence). We also show that an integral of a family of nilsequences is a nilsequence plus a null-sequence. We deduce that for any d invertible finite measure preserving system (W, B,µ,T ), polynomials p1,...,pk: Z −→ Z, p1(n) pk(n) d and sets A1,...,Ak ∈B, the sequence ϕ(n)= µ(T A1 ∩ ... ∩ T Ak), n ∈ Z , is the sum of a nilsequence and a null-sequence. 0. Introduction Throughout the whole paper we will deal with “multiparameter sequences”, – we fix d ∈ N and under “a sequence” will usually understand “a two-sided d-parameter sequence”, that is, a mapping with domain Zd. A (compact) r-step nilmanifold X is a factor space G/Γ, where G is an r-step nilpo- tent (not necessarily connected) Lie group and Γ is a discrete co-compact subgroup of G.
    [Show full text]