It's a well known fact that every \sigma-algebra \mathcal{F} of measurable subsets of \Omega can be thought as a boolean algebra with correspondence
\emptyset \cong 0 \quad \Omega \cong 1 \quad A \cap B \cong A \wedge B \cong AB \quad A \triangle B \cong A \oplus B \cong A + B .
It is also a well known fact that with this notation (\mathcal{F},\cdot,+) is a commutative ring and for any meaure \mu set I_0 = \{ A \in \mathcal{F} : \mu(A) = 0 \} is a \sigma-ideal of this ring.
Now let \mu be an infinite measure over measurable space (\Omega,\mathcal{F}) (assume \mu(\emptyset)=0) and define A_\infty =\{ A \in \mathcal{F} : \mu(A) = \infty \}. At the first glance it seems that this set doesn't have any intersting algebraic structure. However, now I feel that there is some parallelism between structure of A_{\infty} and group of units of arbitrary nontrivial commutative ring R, denote it by U(R) and denote nilradical of R by I_0(R) . Then
1 \in A_\infty \quad 1 \in U(R)
0 \not \in A_\infty \quad 0 \not \in U(R)
\forall b \in A_{\infty}^\complement \forall a \in A_{\infty} \; a +b \in A_\infty \quad \forall b \in I_0(R) \forall a \in U(R) \; a +b \in U(R)
\forall b \in A_{\infty}^\complement \forall a \in A_{\infty} \; ab \not \in A_\infty \quad \forall b \in U(R)^\complement \forall a \in U(R) \; ab \not\in U(R)
Clearly A_\infty \neq U(\mathcal{F}) = \{ \Omega \}, however we still can see some common structure on this sets, so there must be some name for it (I would call such sets antiideals, but I don't think this is correct at all).
P.S.
Now I googled actual definition of antiideal at nLab.
That is set A \subset R is an antiideal of R if
1. 0 \not \in A
2. if a + b \in A then a \in A or b \in A
3. if ab \in A then a,b \in A
Clearly we can see that if by definition 0 \not \in A_{\infty} by definition of A_{\infty} (1. holds).
\infty =\mu(a \triangle b) \le \mu(a \cup b) \le \mu(a) + \mu(b) so either a \in A_\infty or b \in A_\infty (2. holds).
\infty = \mu(a \cap b) \le \mu(a) so a \in A_\infty (3. holds).
This shows that A_\infty is indeed an antiideal of \mathcal{F}.
Clearly U(R) is not generaly an antiideal. Consider ring \mathbb{Z} with U(\mathbb{Z}) = \{ 1, -1 \} . Then (3 - 2) \in U(\mathbb{Z}), however neither 3 nor -2 is a unit.
So the question is still open.
\emptyset \cong 0 \quad \Omega \cong 1 \quad A \cap B \cong A \wedge B \cong AB \quad A \triangle B \cong A \oplus B \cong A + B .
It is also a well known fact that with this notation (\mathcal{F},\cdot,+) is a commutative ring and for any meaure \mu set I_0 = \{ A \in \mathcal{F} : \mu(A) = 0 \} is a \sigma-ideal of this ring.
Now let \mu be an infinite measure over measurable space (\Omega,\mathcal{F}) (assume \mu(\emptyset)=0) and define A_\infty =\{ A \in \mathcal{F} : \mu(A) = \infty \}. At the first glance it seems that this set doesn't have any intersting algebraic structure. However, now I feel that there is some parallelism between structure of A_{\infty} and group of units of arbitrary nontrivial commutative ring R, denote it by U(R) and denote nilradical of R by I_0(R) . Then
1 \in A_\infty \quad 1 \in U(R)
0 \not \in A_\infty \quad 0 \not \in U(R)
\forall b \in A_{\infty}^\complement \forall a \in A_{\infty} \; a +b \in A_\infty \quad \forall b \in I_0(R) \forall a \in U(R) \; a +b \in U(R)
\forall b \in A_{\infty}^\complement \forall a \in A_{\infty} \; ab \not \in A_\infty \quad \forall b \in U(R)^\complement \forall a \in U(R) \; ab \not\in U(R)
Clearly A_\infty \neq U(\mathcal{F}) = \{ \Omega \}, however we still can see some common structure on this sets, so there must be some name for it (I would call such sets antiideals, but I don't think this is correct at all).
P.S.
Now I googled actual definition of antiideal at nLab.
That is set A \subset R is an antiideal of R if
1. 0 \not \in A
2. if a + b \in A then a \in A or b \in A
3. if ab \in A then a,b \in A
Clearly we can see that if by definition 0 \not \in A_{\infty} by definition of A_{\infty} (1. holds).
\infty =\mu(a \triangle b) \le \mu(a \cup b) \le \mu(a) + \mu(b) so either a \in A_\infty or b \in A_\infty (2. holds).
\infty = \mu(a \cap b) \le \mu(a) so a \in A_\infty (3. holds).
This shows that A_\infty is indeed an antiideal of \mathcal{F}.
Clearly U(R) is not generaly an antiideal. Consider ring \mathbb{Z} with U(\mathbb{Z}) = \{ 1, -1 \} . Then (3 - 2) \in U(\mathbb{Z}), however neither 3 nor -2 is a unit.
So the question is still open.
No comments:
Post a Comment