Difference between revisions of "Ring of sets"
m (→Definition) |
(Added book link to reference. Moved definition to a sub-page) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Note that every [[Algebra of sets]] is also a ring, and that an [[Algebra of sets]] is sometimes called a '''Boolean algebra''' | Note that every [[Algebra of sets]] is also a ring, and that an [[Algebra of sets]] is sometimes called a '''Boolean algebra''' | ||
| − | ==Definition== | + | ==[[/Definition|Definition]]== |
| − | + | {{/Definition}} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
==A ring that exists== | ==A ring that exists== | ||
Take a set {{M|X}}, the [[Power set|power set]] of {{M|X}}, {{M|\mathcal{P}(X)}} is a ring (further still, an [[Algebra of sets|algebra]]) - the proof of this is trivial. | Take a set {{M|X}}, the [[Power set|power set]] of {{M|X}}, {{M|\mathcal{P}(X)}} is a ring (further still, an [[Algebra of sets|algebra]]) - the proof of this is trivial. | ||
| Line 44: | Line 41: | ||
{{End Proof}} | {{End Proof}} | ||
{{End Theorem}} | {{End Theorem}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| − | + | <references/> | |
{{Definition|Measure Theory}} | {{Definition|Measure Theory}} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:21, 18 August 2016
A Ring of sets is also known as a Boolean ring
Note that every Algebra of sets is also a ring, and that an Algebra of sets is sometimes called a Boolean algebra
Definition
A Ring of sets is a non-empty class [ilmath]R[/ilmath][1] of sets such that:
- [math]\forall A\in R\forall B\in R[A\cup B\in R][/math]
- [math]\forall A\in R\forall B\in R[A-B\in R][/math]
A ring that exists
Take a set [ilmath]X[/ilmath], the power set of [ilmath]X[/ilmath], [ilmath]\mathcal{P}(X)[/ilmath] is a ring (further still, an algebra) - the proof of this is trivial.
This ring is important because it means we may talk of a "ring generated by"
First theorems
The empty set belongs to every ring
Take any [math]A\in R[/math] then [math]A-A\in R[/math] but [math]A-A=\emptyset[/math] so [math]\emptyset\in R[/math]
Given any two rings, [ilmath]R_1[/ilmath] and [ilmath]R_2[/ilmath], the intersection of the rings, [ilmath]R_1\cap R_2[/ilmath] is a ring
We know [math]\emptyset\in R[/math], this means we know at least [math]\{\emptyset\}\subseteq R_1\cap R_2[/math] - it is non empty.
Take any [math]A,B\in R_1\cap R_2[/math] (which may be the empty set, as shown above)
Then:
- [math]A,B\in R_1[/math]
- [math]A,B\in R_2[/math]
This means:
- [math]A\cup B\in R_1[/math] as [ilmath]R_1[/ilmath] is a ring
- [math]A-B\in R_1[/math] as [ilmath]R_1[/ilmath] is a ring
- [math]A\cup B\in R_2[/math] as [ilmath]R_2[/ilmath] is a ring
- [math]A-B\in R_2[/math] as [ilmath]R_2[/ilmath] is a ring
But then:
- As [math]A\cup B\in R_1[/math] and [math]A\cup B\in R_2[/math] we have [math]A\cup B\in R_1\cap R_2[/math]
- As [math]A- B\in R_1[/math] and [math]A- B\in R_2[/math] we have [math]A- B\in R_1\cap R_2[/math]
Thus [math]R_1\cap R_2[/math] is a ring.
References
- ↑ Page 19 -Measure Theory - Paul R. Halmos
