# why do we need to set a countable union only in the definition of sigma algebra? [closed]

I'm sorry if the question is too basic but at least it would be good to discuss it. Well, I was reading the defition of a sigma algebra and I was trying to understand why the definition of it. If the definition is that (1) the whole space is in the sigma algebra, (2) the complement of any element is also in the sigma algebra, and (3) the countable union of elements of the sigma algebra is in the sigma algebra as well. Well, for me, (1) makes sense because I would like to be able to define a probability over elements on the sigma algebra and the whole space should be "measurable" so in other words, it makes sense to set a measure (probability) to the event that everything happens (which of course it should be one). Number (2) makes sense as well because if an event A occurs then the complement will be the event that doesn't happen so I can set a probability for the complement as 1-(probability A) and this will make sense since the complement is an element of the sigma algebra so can be "measured" (evaluated in my probability set function). My problem is with (3), why do we need a countable union? For instance, there are set that are not borel measurable and they can be obtained by taking the union of single sets containing the elements of it (and these single sets are measurable) but OF COURSE this argument is totally wrong since just saying the word "not measurable" refered to the definition of sigma-algebra which is using explicitly the word "countable union only".

-

## closed as off topic by Evan Jenkins, Steven Landsburg, Tony Huynh, Tom Leinster, Asaf KaragilaSep 24 '12 at 23:58

Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

One can give meaning to a sum of uncountable non-negative real numbers, but it turns out that unless all but countably many of them are zero, the sum ends up being $\infty$. So, for the applications to measure theory, being closed uncountable unions are not going to be of much help (one does complete $\sigma$-algebras w.r.t. measures, but this is, in a sense, related to the fact that one can add uncountably many zeroes...) –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Sep 24 '12 at 23:29
If you re-ask this question on another site, I suggest clarify whether or not you mean to ask whether "Why only countable unions and not more?" or whether you mean to ask "Why do we take countable unions to begin with and not just finite unions?", either questions is valid, but it takes some effort to get the former from your text. –  Asaf Karagila Sep 24 '12 at 23:58