DOCSLIB.ORG

Measure Theory First Week

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Measure Theory First Week Measure Theory First Week Robert Simon e-mail: [email protected] We follow the book by Donald Cohn, Mea- sure Theory. 1 Algebras and Measures: A collection A of subsets of X is called an algebra if (a) all of X is a member of A, (b) for all A 2 A, the set XnA is in A, n (c) for every A1;:::;An 2 A, [i=1Ai 2 A, n (d) for every A1;:::;An 2 A, \i=1Ai 2 A. The condition (d) is superfluous, n n as \i=1Ai = Xn([i=1(XnAi). The empty set ; is always in the collection. 2 The collection A is called a sigma-algebra (or σ-algebra) if (a) and (b) hold and additionally for every infinite sequence A1;A2;::: of sets in A: 1 1 [i=1Ai 2 A and \i=1Ai 2 A. In general we work with sigma-algebras. A set in the sigma-algebra A is called a A- measurable set. A space X with a sigma algebra A is ex- pressed as (X; A) and is called a measurable space. 3 Examples: (a) A is the collection of all subsets of some set X. { sigma-algebra (b) A = fX; ;g { sigma-algebra (c) X is infinite and A is the collection of sets A such that A is finite or XnA is finite. { algebra, but not a sigma-algebra. (d) X is infinite and A is the collection of sets A such that A is finite or countable or XnA is finite or countable. { sigma-algebra. 4 (e) X = R and A is the collection of all intervals of R. { not an algebra (f) X = R and A is the collection of all finite unions of intervals of R. { algebra, but not sigma-algebra. If A were a sigma-algebra, all points of R would be in A, and so the rational numbers Q should be in A. 5 Given a collection of sets A that may not be a sigma-algebra, we want to way to construct a collection σ(A) that is a sigma-algebra and is the sigma-algebra that is generated by A{ meaning that all sets which must be in the sigma algebra are there and all that need not be there are not there. We mean that it is the smallest sigma-algebra containing A. 6 Lemma: Let X be a set and let (Ai j i 2 I) be an arbitrary collection of sigma alge- bras. The collection A := fA j 8i 2 IA 2 Aig is a sigma-algebra. Proof: (a) X 2 Ai for every i 2 I ) X 2 A. (b) A 2 A ) 8 i 2 IA 2 Ai ) 8 i 2 IXnA 2 Ai ) XnA 2 A. (c) A1; · · · 2 A ) 8 i 2 IA1; · · · 2 Ai 1 1 ) 8 i 2 I [j=1 Aj 2 Ai )[j=1Aj 2 A. 2 7 Lemma: For any collection A of subsets of X there is a smallest sigma-algebra, called σ(A), containing A. This means that any other sigma algebra containing A also con- tains σ(A). Proof: Let (Bi j i 2 I) be all the sigma algebras of X that contain A. There is at least one member of the family, namely all the subsets of X. By the above lemma, the collection B := fB j 8i 2 IB 2 Big is a sigma-algebra. Fix any sigma algebra Bi containing A: any B 2 B is also contained in Bi. 2 8 Determining the smallest sigma algebra con- taining a collection of sets can be a difficult task. Consider the collection A of subsets A1;A2;::: of the integers such that Ai = fni jn is an integerg. What is σ(A)? 9 Topology: A topology for a set X is a collection A of open subsets of X such that: (a) X 2 A, (b) 8A1;A2 2 A A1 \ A2 2 A, (c) if (Ai j i 2 I) is any collection in A then [iAi 2 A. As the empty intersection is included, the empty set is an open set. In Rn a set A is open if for every x 2 A there is some δ such that the open ball Bδ(x) = fy j jjy − xjj < δg is contained in A. It is easy to check that this definition satis- fies the three conditions (a), (b), (c). 10 A base for a topology is a special collection B of open sets such that every open set A of the topology is a union of sets of the base. Lemma: A base for the topology of Rn is the collection of sets Bδ(x) where δ is a rational number and each coordinate of x is rational. 11 Proof: Let x be a member of A, an open set. With δ small enough so that Bδ(x) ⊆ A, let x be a point with rational coefficients within δ=3 of x and let δ be a rational num- ber with δ=2 < δ < 2δ=3. The ball Bδ(x) both contains x and is con- tained within A. Unioning such open balls for every x 2 A will recreate the set A. 2. 12 The above base of open sets of Rn is a count- able collection, meaning that every open set is the union of countably many open balls of this base. For any space X with a topology B(X) is defined to be the smallest sigma- algebra containing all the open sets of X. This special sigma-algebra is called the col- lection of Borel sets. B(Rn) include most of the sets one could imagine. 13 Let F be the collection of closed sets of Rn and G the collection of open sets of Rn. Let Fσ be the collection of sets of the form 1 [i=1Ai for some sequence A1;A2;::: of closed sets (in F). Let Gδ be the collection of sets of the form 1 \i=1Ai for some sequence A1;A2;::: of open sets (in G). Members of Gδ are called Gδ sets and mem- bers of Fσ are called Fδ sets. 14 n Lemma: Every closed set of R is in Gδ n and every open set of R is in Fσ. Proof: Let C be a closed set of Rn. For every > 0 define C := fy j jjy − xjj < for some x 2 C. C is open: if jjy − xjj < for some x 2 C then B−||y−xjj (y) is also in C. 2 We claim that \iC1 is equal to C. i Any points y of \iC1 has a sequence x1; x2;::: i 1 of points in C such that jjy − xijj < i . Therefore the sequence xi converges to y. As C is closed, this means that y is in C. 15 Now take any open set A and consider its complement B = RnnA. As B = \Ai for a sequence of open sets, 1 we can write XnB = A = [i=1XnAi for a sequence XnA1;XnA2;::: of closed sets. 2 16 Corollary: The Borel collection of Rn are the sigma-algebra generated by (a) the open sets of Rn, (b) the closed sets of Rn, (c) a countable base for the topology of Rn. 17 Any countable process of taking unions and intersections, starting with the open sets, will result in a Borel set. Indeed, it is consistent logically to assume that all subsets of Rn are Borel sets, and it requires some axiom of choice to prove that a non-Borel set exists. 18 Measure: Let X be a set with an algebra A. A func- tion µ : A! [0; 1] is called finitely ad- ditive if for every finite collection A1;A2;:::;An of mutually disjoint sets in A, n Pn µ([i=1Ai) = i=1 µ(Ai). It is called a measure if additionally µ(;) = 0. Let X be a set with a sigma algebra A.A function µ : A! [0; 1] is called count- ably additive if for every infinite collec- tion A1;A2;::: of mutually disjoint sets in A, 1 P1 µ([i=1Ai) = i=1 µ(Ai). It is called a measure if additionally µ(;) = 0. 19 Countably additive implies finitely additive, by equating Aj = ; for all j > n such that n is large enough. But does finite additivity on a sigma algebra imply countable additivity? People thought so, until about 1900. The theory of finite additive measures is deep, related to duality in functional analysis, and not handled in this course. For us, measure means countably additive. 20 Examples: (a) µ(A) = jAj, the cardinality of A. (b) x 2 X chosen, δx(A) = 1 if x 2 A and δx(A) = 0 if x 62 A. 21 (c) Z is the set of integers and A is the collection of subsets such that A is in A if and only if A is finite or ZnA is finite. µ(A) = 1 if ZnA is finite and µ(A) = 0 if A is finite. Now try to extend µ to the sigma algebra σ(A), which are all the subsets of Z. Problem: what should be the weight given to the set of even numbers and the set of odd numbers? And what of the other ways to partition the integers into finitely many disjoint infinite subsets? It can be done, but never in a sigma additive way. If so, µ(fig) = 0 for all i 2 Z, but then µ(Z) = 0, a contradiction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Algebra I Chapter 1. Basic Facts from Set Theory 1.1 Glossary of Abbreviations
    Notes: c F.P. Greenleaf, 2000-2014 v43-s14sets.tex (version 1/1/2014) Algebra I Chapter 1. Basic Facts from Set Theory 1.1 Glossary of abbreviations. Below we list some standard math symbols that will be used as shorthand abbreviations throughout this course. means “for all; for every” • ∀ means “there exists (at least one)” • ∃ ! means “there exists exactly one” • ∃ s.t. means “such that” • = means “implies” • ⇒ means “if and only if” • ⇐⇒ x A means “the point x belongs to a set A;” x / A means “x is not in A” • ∈ ∈ N denotes the set of natural numbers (counting numbers) 1, 2, 3, • · · · Z denotes the set of all integers (positive, negative or zero) • Q denotes the set of rational numbers • R denotes the set of real numbers • C denotes the set of complex numbers • x A : P (x) If A is a set, this denotes the subset of elements x in A such that •statement { ∈ P (x)} is true. As examples of the last notation for specifying subsets: x R : x2 +1 2 = ( , 1] [1, ) { ∈ ≥ } −∞ − ∪ ∞ x R : x2 +1=0 = { ∈ } ∅ z C : z2 +1=0 = +i, i where i = √ 1 { ∈ } { − } − 1.2 Basic facts from set theory. Next we review the basic definitions and notations of set theory, which will be used throughout our discussions of algebra. denotes the empty set, the set with nothing in it • ∅ x A means that the point x belongs to a set A, or that x is an element of A. • ∈ A B means A is a subset of B – i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • A Class of Symmetric Difference-Closed Sets Related to Commuting Involutions John Campbell
    A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions John Campbell To cite this version: John Campbell. A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, DMTCS, 2017, Vol 19 no. 1. hal-01345066v4 HAL Id: hal-01345066 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01345066v4 Submitted on 18 Mar 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science DMTCS vol. 19:1, 2017, #8 A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions John M. Campbell York University, Canada received 19th July 2016, revised 15th Dec. 2016, 1st Feb. 2017, accepted 10th Feb. 2017. Recent research on the combinatorics of finite sets has explored the structure of symmetric difference-closed sets, and recent research in combinatorial group theory has concerned the enumeration of commuting involutions in Sn and An. In this article, we consider an interesting combination of these two subjects, by introducing classes of symmetric difference-closed sets of elements which correspond in a natural way to commuting involutions in Sn and An. We consider the natural combinatorial problem of enumerating symmetric difference-closed sets consisting of subsets of sets consisting of pairwise disjoint 2-subsets of [n], and the problem of enumerating symmetric difference-closed sets consisting of elements which correspond to commuting involutions in An.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Numerosities of Sets of Tuples
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 367, Number 1, January 2015, Pages 275–292 S 0002-9947(2014)06136-9 Article electronically published on July 2, 2014 NATURAL NUMEROSITIES OF SETS OF TUPLES MARCO FORTI AND GIUSEPPE MORANA ROCCASALVO Abstract. We consider a notion of “numerosity” for sets of tuples of natural numbers that satisfies the five common notions of Euclid’s Elements, so it can agree with cardinality only for finite sets. By suitably axiomatizing such a no- tion, we show that, contrasting to cardinal arithmetic, the natural “Cantorian” definitions of order relation and arithmetical operations provide a very good algebraic structure. In fact, numerosities can be taken as the non-negative part of a discretely ordered ring, namely the quotient of a formal power series ring modulo a suitable (“gauge”) ideal. In particular, special numerosities, called “natural”, can be identified with the semiring of hypernatural numbers of appropriate ultrapowers of N. Introduction In this paper we consider a notion of “equinumerosity” on sets of tuples of natural numbers, i.e. an equivalence relation, finer than equicardinality, that satisfies the celebrated five Euclidean common notions about magnitudines ([8]), including the principle that “the whole is greater than the part”. This notion preserves the basic properties of equipotency for finite sets. In particular, the natural Cantorian definitions endow the corresponding numerosities with a structure of a discretely ordered semiring, where 0 is the size of the emptyset, 1 is the size of every singleton, and greater numerosity corresponds to supersets. This idea of “Euclidean” numerosity has been recently investigated by V.
    [Show full text]
  • Ergodicity and Metric Transitivity
    Chapter 25 Ergodicity and Metric Transitivity Section 25.1 explains the ideas of ergodicity (roughly, there is only one invariant set of positive measure) and metric transivity (roughly, the system has a positive probability of going from any- where to anywhere), and why they are (almost) the same. Section 25.2 gives some examples of ergodic systems. Section 25.3 deduces some consequences of ergodicity, most im- portantly that time averages have deterministic limits ( 25.3.1), and an asymptotic approach to independence between even§ts at widely separated times ( 25.3.2), admittedly in a very weak sense. § 25.1 Metric Transitivity Definition 341 (Ergodic Systems, Processes, Measures and Transfor- mations) A dynamical system Ξ, , µ, T is ergodic, or an ergodic system or an ergodic process when µ(C) = 0 orXµ(C) = 1 for every T -invariant set C. µ is called a T -ergodic measure, and T is called a µ-ergodic transformation, or just an ergodic measure and ergodic transformation, respectively. Remark: Most authorities require a µ-ergodic transformation to also be measure-preserving for µ. But (Corollary 54) measure-preserving transforma- tions are necessarily stationary, and we want to minimize our stationarity as- sumptions. So what most books call “ergodic”, we have to qualify as “stationary and ergodic”. (Conversely, when other people talk about processes being “sta- tionary and ergodic”, they mean “stationary with only one ergodic component”; but of that, more later. Definition 342 (Metric Transitivity) A dynamical system is metrically tran- sitive, metrically indecomposable, or irreducible when, for any two sets A, B n ∈ , if µ(A), µ(B) > 0, there exists an n such that µ(T − A B) > 0.
    [Show full text]
  • MTH 304: General Topology Semester 2, 2017-2018
    MTH 304: General Topology Semester 2, 2017-2018 Dr. Prahlad Vaidyanathan Contents I. Continuous Functions3 1. First Definitions................................3 2. Open Sets...................................4 3. Continuity by Open Sets...........................6 II. Topological Spaces8 1. Definition and Examples...........................8 2. Metric Spaces................................. 11 3. Basis for a topology.............................. 16 4. The Product Topology on X × Y ...................... 18 Q 5. The Product Topology on Xα ....................... 20 6. Closed Sets.................................. 22 7. Continuous Functions............................. 27 8. The Quotient Topology............................ 30 III.Properties of Topological Spaces 36 1. The Hausdorff property............................ 36 2. Connectedness................................. 37 3. Path Connectedness............................. 41 4. Local Connectedness............................. 44 5. Compactness................................. 46 6. Compact Subsets of Rn ............................ 50 7. Continuous Functions on Compact Sets................... 52 8. Compactness in Metric Spaces........................ 56 9. Local Compactness.............................. 59 IV.Separation Axioms 62 1. Regular Spaces................................ 62 2. Normal Spaces................................ 64 3. Tietze's extension Theorem......................... 67 4. Urysohn Metrization Theorem........................ 71 5. Imbedding of Manifolds..........................
    [Show full text]
  • POINT-COFINITE COVERS in the LAVER MODEL 1. Background Let
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 138, Number 9, September 2010, Pages 3313–3321 S 0002-9939(10)10407-9 Article electronically published on April 30, 2010 POINT-COFINITE COVERS IN THE LAVER MODEL ARNOLD W. MILLER AND BOAZ TSABAN (Communicated by Julia Knight) Abstract. Let S1(Γ, Γ) be the statement: For each sequence of point-cofinite open covers, one can pick one element from each cover and obtain a point- cofinite cover. b is the minimal cardinality of a set of reals not satisfying S1(Γ, Γ). We prove the following assertions: (1) If there is an unbounded tower, then there are sets of reals of cardinality b satisfying S1(Γ, Γ). (2) It is consistent that all sets of reals satisfying S1(Γ, Γ) have cardinality smaller than b. These results can also be formulated as dealing with Arhangel’ski˘ı’s property α2 for spaces of continuous real-valued functions. The main technical result is that in Laver’s model, each set of reals of cardinality b has an unbounded Borel image in the Baire space ωω. 1. Background Let P be a nontrivial property of sets of reals. The critical cardinality of P , denoted non(P ), is the minimal cardinality of a set of reals not satisfying P .A natural question is whether there is a set of reals of cardinality at least non(P ), which satisfies P , i.e., a nontrivial example. We consider the following property. Let X be a set of reals. U is a point-cofinite cover of X if U is infinite, and for each x ∈ X, {U ∈U: x ∈ U} is a cofinite subset of U.1 Having X fixed in the background, let Γ be the family of all point- cofinite open covers of X.
    [Show full text]
  • A TEXTBOOK of TOPOLOGY Lltld
    SEIFERT AND THRELFALL: A TEXTBOOK OF TOPOLOGY lltld SEI FER T: 7'0PO 1.OG 1' 0 I.' 3- Dl M E N SI 0 N A I. FIRERED SPACES This is a volume in PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS A Series of Monographs and Textbooks Editors: SAMUELEILENBERG AND HYMANBASS A list of recent titles in this series appears at the end of this volunie. SEIFERT AND THRELFALL: A TEXTBOOK OF TOPOLOGY H. SEIFERT and W. THRELFALL Translated by Michael A. Goldman und S E I FE R T: TOPOLOGY OF 3-DIMENSIONAL FIBERED SPACES H. SEIFERT Translated by Wolfgang Heil Edited by Joan S. Birman and Julian Eisner @ 1980 ACADEMIC PRESS A Subsidiary of Harcourr Brace Jovanovich, Publishers NEW YORK LONDON TORONTO SYDNEY SAN FRANCISCO COPYRIGHT@ 1980, BY ACADEMICPRESS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. 11 1 Fifth Avenue, New York. New York 10003 United Kingdom Edition published by ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD. 24/28 Oval Road, London NWI 7DX Mit Genehmigung des Verlager B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart, veranstaltete, akin autorisierte englische Ubersetzung, der deutschen Originalausgdbe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Seifert, Herbert, 1897- Seifert and Threlfall: A textbook of topology. Seifert: Topology of 3-dimensional fibered spaces. (Pure and applied mathematics, a series of mono- graphs and textbooks ; ) Translation of Lehrbuch der Topologic. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hardness of the Hidden Subset Sum Problem and Its Cryptographic Implications
    The Hardness of the Hidden Subset Sum Problem and Its Cryptographic Implications Phong Nguyen and Jacques Stern Ecole´ Normale Sup´erieure Laboratoire d’Informatique 45 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris Cedex 05 France fPhong.Nguyen,[email protected] http://www.dmi.ens.fr/~fpnguyen,sterng/ Abstract. At Eurocrypt’98, Boyko, Peinado and Venkatesan presented simple and very fast methods for generating randomly distributed pairs of the form (x; gx mod p) using precomputation. The security of these methods relied on the potential hardness of a new problem, the so-called hidden subset sum problem. Surprisingly, apart from exhaustive search, no algorithm to solve this problem was known. In this paper, we exhibit a security criterion for the hidden subset sum problem, and discuss its implications on the practicability of the precomputation schemes. Our results are twofold. On the one hand, we present an efficient lattice-based attack which is expected to succeed if and only if the parameters satisfy a particular condition that we make explicit. Experiments have validated the theoretical analysis, and show the limitations of the precomputa- tion methods. For instance, any realistic smart-card implementation of Schnorr’s identification scheme using these precomputations methods is either vulnerable to the attack, or less efficient than with traditional pre- computation methods. On the other hand, we show that, when another condition is satisfied, the pseudo-random generator based on the hidden subset sum problem is strong in some precise sense which includes at- tacks via lattice reduction. Namely, using the discrete Fourier transform, we prove that the distribution of the generator’s output is indistinguish- able from the uniform distribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Notes from Warwick, Part 1
    Measure Theory, MA 359 Handout 1 Valeriy Slastikov Autumn, 2005 1 Measure theory 1.1 General construction of Lebesgue measure In this section we will do the general construction of σ-additive complete measure by extending initial σ-additive measure on a semi-ring to a measure on σ-algebra generated by this semi-ring and then completing this measure by adding to the σ-algebra all the null sets. This section provides you with the essentials of the construction and make some parallels with the construction on the plane. Throughout these section we will deal with some collection of sets whose elements are subsets of some fixed abstract set X. It is not necessary to assume any topology on X but for simplicity you may imagine X = Rn. We start with some important definitions: Definition 1.1 A nonempty collection of sets S is a semi-ring if 1. Empty set ? 2 S; 2. If A 2 S; B 2 S then A \ B 2 S; n 3. If A 2 S; A ⊃ A1 2 S then A = [k=1Ak, where Ak 2 S for all 1 ≤ k ≤ n and Ak are disjoint sets. If the set X 2 S then S is called semi-algebra, the set X is called a unit of the collection of sets S. Example 1.1 The collection S of intervals [a; b) for all a; b 2 R form a semi-ring since 1. empty set ? = [a; a) 2 S; 2. if A 2 S and B 2 S then A = [a; b) and B = [c; d).
    [Show full text]
  • Composite Subset Measures
    Composite Subset Measures Lei Chen1, Raghu Ramakrishnan1,2, Paul Barford1, Bee-Chung Chen1, Vinod Yegneswaran1 1 Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA 2 Yahoo! Research, Santa Clara, CA, USA {chenl, pb, beechung, vinod}@cs.wisc.edu [email protected] ABSTRACT into a hierarchy, leading to a very natural notion of multidimen- Measures are numeric summaries of a collection of data records sional regions. Each region represents a data subset. Summarizing produced by applying aggregation functions. Summarizing a col- the records that belong to a region by applying an aggregate opera- lection of subsets of a large dataset, by computing a measure for tor, such as SUM, to a measure attribute (thereby computing a new each subset in the (typically, user-specified) collection is a funda- measure that is associated with the entire region) is a fundamental mental problem. The multidimensional data model, which treats operation in OLAP. records as points in a space defined by dimension attributes, offers Often, however, more sophisticated analysis can be carried out a natural space of data subsets to be considered as summarization based on the computed measures, e.g., identifying regions with candidates, and traditional SQL and OLAP constructs, such as abnormally high measures. For such analyses, it is necessary to GROUP BY and CUBE, allow us to compute measures for subsets compute the measure for a region by also considering other re- drawn from this space. However, GROUP BY only allows us to gions (which are, intuitively, “related” to the given region) and summarize a limited collection of subsets, and CUBE summarizes their measures.
    [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]
  • On the Cardinality of a Topological Space
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 66, Number 1, September 1977 ON THE CARDINALITY OF A TOPOLOGICAL SPACE ARTHUR CHARLESWORTH Abstract. In recent papers, B. Sapirovskiï, R. Pol, and R. E. Hodel have used a transfinite construction technique of Sapirovskil to provide a unified treatment of fundamental inequalities in the theory of cardinal functions. Sapirovskil's technique is used in this paper to establish an inequality whose countable version states that the continuum is an upper bound for the cardinality of any Lindelöf space having countable pseudocharacter and a point-continuum separating open cover. In addition, the unified treatment is extended to include a recent theorem of Sapirovskil concerning the cardinality of T3 spaces. 1. Introduction. Throughout this paper a and ß denote ordinals, m and n denote infinite cardinals, and \A\ denotes the cardinality of a set A. We let d, c, L, w, it, and \¡>denote the density, cellularity, Lindelöf degree, weight, 77-weight, and pseudocharacter. (For definitions see Juhász [5].) We also let nw, 77% and psw denote the net weight, vT-character, and point separating weight. A collection "31 of subsets of a topological space X is a network for X if whenever p E V, with V open in X, we have p E N C F for some N in CX. A collection % of nonempty open sets is a tr-local base at/7 if whenever p E V, with V open in X, we have U C V for some U in %. A separating open cover § for X is an open cover for X having the property that for each distinct x and y in X there is an S in S such that x E S and y G S.
    [Show full text]