If a set is closed under countable unions, is it closed under countable intersections?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I am trying to think through the intuition of DeMorgan's laws. If I have a set $Omega$ and a sequence of subsets ($A_n$)=$X_1$, $X_2$, ... how can I know that given the fact $Omega$ is closed under countable unions, $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections, or vice-versa.



Moreover - given the answer to the above, is it enough to show that $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections OR countable unions as part of proving that $Omega$ is a $sigma$-algebra?



Thanks in advance!






measure-theory elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2




    You can't know it, because families of sets can be closed under countable union but not under countable intersections (and viceversa). Most topologies, in fact, are like that.
    – Saucy O'Path
    6 hours ago











  • To answer the question in the title, consider all the intervals of form $[0,h)$, where $h>0$, then, because it is linearly ordered under $subseteq$, it is closed under arbitrary union(which is stronger then countable). Now take all the members in the form of $[0,1/n)$ for natural $n$, the intersection is the singleton $0$
    – Holo
    6 hours ago














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I am trying to think through the intuition of DeMorgan's laws. If I have a set $Omega$ and a sequence of subsets ($A_n$)=$X_1$, $X_2$, ... how can I know that given the fact $Omega$ is closed under countable unions, $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections, or vice-versa.



Moreover - given the answer to the above, is it enough to show that $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections OR countable unions as part of proving that $Omega$ is a $sigma$-algebra?



Thanks in advance!






measure-theory elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 2




    You can't know it, because families of sets can be closed under countable union but not under countable intersections (and viceversa). Most topologies, in fact, are like that.
    – Saucy O'Path
    6 hours ago











  • To answer the question in the title, consider all the intervals of form $[0,h)$, where $h>0$, then, because it is linearly ordered under $subseteq$, it is closed under arbitrary union(which is stronger then countable). Now take all the members in the form of $[0,1/n)$ for natural $n$, the intersection is the singleton $0$
    – Holo
    6 hours ago












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I am trying to think through the intuition of DeMorgan's laws. If I have a set $Omega$ and a sequence of subsets ($A_n$)=$X_1$, $X_2$, ... how can I know that given the fact $Omega$ is closed under countable unions, $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections, or vice-versa.



Moreover - given the answer to the above, is it enough to show that $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections OR countable unions as part of proving that $Omega$ is a $sigma$-algebra?



Thanks in advance!






measure-theory elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I am trying to think through the intuition of DeMorgan's laws. If I have a set $Omega$ and a sequence of subsets ($A_n$)=$X_1$, $X_2$, ... how can I know that given the fact $Omega$ is closed under countable unions, $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections, or vice-versa.



Moreover - given the answer to the above, is it enough to show that $Omega$ is closed under countable intersections OR countable unions as part of proving that $Omega$ is a $sigma$-algebra?



Thanks in advance!






measure-theory elementary-set-theory




measure-theory elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago





















New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









pestopasta

234




234




New contributor




pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






pestopasta is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 2




    You can't know it, because families of sets can be closed under countable union but not under countable intersections (and viceversa). Most topologies, in fact, are like that.
    – Saucy O'Path
    6 hours ago











  • To answer the question in the title, consider all the intervals of form $[0,h)$, where $h>0$, then, because it is linearly ordered under $subseteq$, it is closed under arbitrary union(which is stronger then countable). Now take all the members in the form of $[0,1/n)$ for natural $n$, the intersection is the singleton $0$
    – Holo
    6 hours ago












  • 2




    You can't know it, because families of sets can be closed under countable union but not under countable intersections (and viceversa). Most topologies, in fact, are like that.
    – Saucy O'Path
    6 hours ago











  • To answer the question in the title, consider all the intervals of form $[0,h)$, where $h>0$, then, because it is linearly ordered under $subseteq$, it is closed under arbitrary union(which is stronger then countable). Now take all the members in the form of $[0,1/n)$ for natural $n$, the intersection is the singleton $0$
    – Holo
    6 hours ago







2




2




You can't know it, because families of sets can be closed under countable union but not under countable intersections (and viceversa). Most topologies, in fact, are like that.
– Saucy O'Path
6 hours ago





You can't know it, because families of sets can be closed under countable union but not under countable intersections (and viceversa). Most topologies, in fact, are like that.
– Saucy O'Path
6 hours ago













To answer the question in the title, consider all the intervals of form $[0,h)$, where $h>0$, then, because it is linearly ordered under $subseteq$, it is closed under arbitrary union(which is stronger then countable). Now take all the members in the form of $[0,1/n)$ for natural $n$, the intersection is the singleton $0$
– Holo
6 hours ago




To answer the question in the title, consider all the intervals of form $[0,h)$, where $h>0$, then, because it is linearly ordered under $subseteq$, it is closed under arbitrary union(which is stronger then countable). Now take all the members in the form of $[0,1/n)$ for natural $n$, the intersection is the singleton $0$
– Holo
6 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote



accepted










It is false. Consider as $Omega$ the family of subsets of $mathbbN$ whose complement is finite plus the empty set.



Then $Omega$ is closed under arbitrary unions (in particular, countable unions), but it is easy to find a countable family whose intersection doesn't belong to $Omega$: take $A_n=mathbbNsetminus1,2,dots,n$; then $bigcap_n A_n=0notinOmega$.



Closure under countable unions implies closure under countable intersections if the family is closed under complements (this follows from De Morgan’s laws).






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    For a small example:



    $mathcalF=1,2,1,2$ is closed under unions... (Each of $1cup1,1cup2,1cup1,2,dots$ etc... are elements of $mathcalF$)



    ...however it is not closed under intersections. ($1cap2=emptysetnotinmathcalF$)






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      I believe it is if it is also closed under complements.



      Suppose $A in Omega$ and $B in Omega$.



      Then $A^c in Omega$ and $B^c in Omega$.



      Then $(A^c cup B^c)^c = A cap B in Omega$






      share|cite|improve this answer



























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Consider the family of sets of natural numbers with at least seventeen elements.



        The union of any number of such sets still has at least seventeen elements. But the intersection ...






        share|cite|improve this answer




















          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );






          pestopasta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2922158%2fif-a-set-is-closed-under-countable-unions-is-it-closed-under-countable-intersec%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest

















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          It is false. Consider as $Omega$ the family of subsets of $mathbbN$ whose complement is finite plus the empty set.



          Then $Omega$ is closed under arbitrary unions (in particular, countable unions), but it is easy to find a countable family whose intersection doesn't belong to $Omega$: take $A_n=mathbbNsetminus1,2,dots,n$; then $bigcap_n A_n=0notinOmega$.



          Closure under countable unions implies closure under countable intersections if the family is closed under complements (this follows from De Morgan’s laws).






          share|cite|improve this answer
























            up vote
            2
            down vote



            accepted










            It is false. Consider as $Omega$ the family of subsets of $mathbbN$ whose complement is finite plus the empty set.



            Then $Omega$ is closed under arbitrary unions (in particular, countable unions), but it is easy to find a countable family whose intersection doesn't belong to $Omega$: take $A_n=mathbbNsetminus1,2,dots,n$; then $bigcap_n A_n=0notinOmega$.



            Closure under countable unions implies closure under countable intersections if the family is closed under complements (this follows from De Morgan’s laws).






            share|cite|improve this answer






















              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted







              up vote
              2
              down vote



              accepted






              It is false. Consider as $Omega$ the family of subsets of $mathbbN$ whose complement is finite plus the empty set.



              Then $Omega$ is closed under arbitrary unions (in particular, countable unions), but it is easy to find a countable family whose intersection doesn't belong to $Omega$: take $A_n=mathbbNsetminus1,2,dots,n$; then $bigcap_n A_n=0notinOmega$.



              Closure under countable unions implies closure under countable intersections if the family is closed under complements (this follows from De Morgan’s laws).






              share|cite|improve this answer












              It is false. Consider as $Omega$ the family of subsets of $mathbbN$ whose complement is finite plus the empty set.



              Then $Omega$ is closed under arbitrary unions (in particular, countable unions), but it is easy to find a countable family whose intersection doesn't belong to $Omega$: take $A_n=mathbbNsetminus1,2,dots,n$; then $bigcap_n A_n=0notinOmega$.



              Closure under countable unions implies closure under countable intersections if the family is closed under complements (this follows from De Morgan’s laws).







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered 6 hours ago









              egreg

              167k1280189




              167k1280189




















                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote













                  For a small example:



                  $mathcalF=1,2,1,2$ is closed under unions... (Each of $1cup1,1cup2,1cup1,2,dots$ etc... are elements of $mathcalF$)



                  ...however it is not closed under intersections. ($1cap2=emptysetnotinmathcalF$)






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    up vote
                    3
                    down vote













                    For a small example:



                    $mathcalF=1,2,1,2$ is closed under unions... (Each of $1cup1,1cup2,1cup1,2,dots$ etc... are elements of $mathcalF$)



                    ...however it is not closed under intersections. ($1cap2=emptysetnotinmathcalF$)






                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      3
                      down vote









                      For a small example:



                      $mathcalF=1,2,1,2$ is closed under unions... (Each of $1cup1,1cup2,1cup1,2,dots$ etc... are elements of $mathcalF$)



                      ...however it is not closed under intersections. ($1cap2=emptysetnotinmathcalF$)






                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      For a small example:



                      $mathcalF=1,2,1,2$ is closed under unions... (Each of $1cup1,1cup2,1cup1,2,dots$ etc... are elements of $mathcalF$)



                      ...however it is not closed under intersections. ($1cap2=emptysetnotinmathcalF$)







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered 6 hours ago









                      JMoravitz

                      45k33582




                      45k33582




















                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote













                          I believe it is if it is also closed under complements.



                          Suppose $A in Omega$ and $B in Omega$.



                          Then $A^c in Omega$ and $B^c in Omega$.



                          Then $(A^c cup B^c)^c = A cap B in Omega$






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            up vote
                            1
                            down vote













                            I believe it is if it is also closed under complements.



                            Suppose $A in Omega$ and $B in Omega$.



                            Then $A^c in Omega$ and $B^c in Omega$.



                            Then $(A^c cup B^c)^c = A cap B in Omega$






                            share|cite|improve this answer






















                              up vote
                              1
                              down vote










                              up vote
                              1
                              down vote









                              I believe it is if it is also closed under complements.



                              Suppose $A in Omega$ and $B in Omega$.



                              Then $A^c in Omega$ and $B^c in Omega$.



                              Then $(A^c cup B^c)^c = A cap B in Omega$






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              I believe it is if it is also closed under complements.



                              Suppose $A in Omega$ and $B in Omega$.



                              Then $A^c in Omega$ and $B^c in Omega$.



                              Then $(A^c cup B^c)^c = A cap B in Omega$







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered 6 hours ago









                              Juanma Eloy

                              4841414




                              4841414




















                                  up vote
                                  1
                                  down vote













                                  Consider the family of sets of natural numbers with at least seventeen elements.



                                  The union of any number of such sets still has at least seventeen elements. But the intersection ...






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote













                                    Consider the family of sets of natural numbers with at least seventeen elements.



                                    The union of any number of such sets still has at least seventeen elements. But the intersection ...






                                    share|cite|improve this answer






















                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote










                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote









                                      Consider the family of sets of natural numbers with at least seventeen elements.



                                      The union of any number of such sets still has at least seventeen elements. But the intersection ...






                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      Consider the family of sets of natural numbers with at least seventeen elements.



                                      The union of any number of such sets still has at least seventeen elements. But the intersection ...







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered 6 hours ago









                                      Noah Schweber

                                      113k9143267




                                      113k9143267




















                                          pestopasta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                           

                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded


















                                          pestopasta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          pestopasta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                                          pestopasta is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                           


                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2922158%2fif-a-set-is-closed-under-countable-unions-is-it-closed-under-countable-intersec%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest
































































                                          Comments

                                          Post a Comment

                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

                                          Image
                                          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
                                          Read more

                                          Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

                                          Image
                                          Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
                                          Read more

                                          Confectionery

                                          Image
                                          Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
                                          Read more