7
$\begingroup$

Both in abstract algebra and measure theory is there term ring/algebra, but their definition are different and we can not deduce one from the other, the only requirement in definition they share is that they be closed under two operations: addition and multiplication in abstract algebra while difference and union in measure theory. Why we use the same term for these two different notions in two different branches of mathematics? Is there any connection between them? Thanks!

To be more specific, my intention is to compare "ring in measure theory" with "ring in abstract algebra", not "ring" with "algebra". I use notation "ring/algebra" in the post because the term algebra has the same situation, that is, compare "algebra in measure theory" with "algebra in abstract algebra".

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why not use the same term? $\endgroup$
    – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
    Commented Apr 27, 2010 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ It's been a while since I read it, but doesn' Halmos' Measure Theory book have some brief discussion of this? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Apr 27, 2010 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ I found my question in Ex.(4), page 22 of Halmos' Measure Theory. $\endgroup$
    – zzzhhh
    Commented Apr 29, 2010 at 4:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

A ring of sets is a ring(usual definition) with the operations intersection(multiplication) and symmetric difference(addition). A sigma ring is a special kind of a ring of sets. Now a sigma algebra (which would possibly more appropriately be called sigma field) is a sigma ring where every element has a complement (multiplicative inverse) is a sigma ring with unity (equivalent to every element has a complement),thus it is a Boolean algebra with respect to intersection and union, and a Boolean ring with respect to intersection and symmetric difference. Every Boolean ring is an algebra over $\mathbb F_2$(thank you Mark Meckes for the correction). I hope this connection is enough to justify the use of these terms.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you but, to be more specific, my intention is to compare "ring in measure theory" with "ring in abstract algebra", not "ring" with "algebra". I use notation "ring/algebra" in the post because the term algebra has the same situation, that is, compare "algebra in measure theory" with "algebra in abstract algebra". $\endgroup$
    – zzzhhh
    Commented Apr 27, 2010 at 4:59
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ zzzhhh, I think you should read both Gjergji and Pete's answers more closely. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Commented Apr 27, 2010 at 5:02
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The complement of a set is not a multiplicative inverse; the product is the empty set, which is the additive identity. So a field/algebra of sets is not a field in the sense of abstract algebra. On the other hand, an algebra of sets is an algebra in the sense of abstract algebra: it is a ring as you explained, and also a vector space over the field $\mathbb{F}_2$ of 2 elements, which makes it an $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra. This is why I personally prefer the terminology "sigma algebra" over "sigma field". $\endgroup$
    – Mark Meckes
    Commented Apr 27, 2010 at 13:10
16
$\begingroup$

There is a mathematical relationship between the two concepts: given an algebra of sets, one can define a commutative ring by taking addition to be symmetric difference and multiplication to be intersection. This ring is a Boolean ring, i.e., $x^2 = x$ for all elements $x$. Conversely, the Stone Representation Theorem says that every Boolean ring can be viewed as the ring associated to some algebra of sets. See e.g. Section 4.5

http://alpha.math.uga.edu/~pete/integral.pdf

for more detailed statements and proofs.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you but, to be more specific, my intention is to compare "ring in measure theory" with "ring in abstract algebra", not "ring" with "algebra". I use notation "ring/algebra" in the post because the term algebra has the same situation, that is, compare "algebra in measure theory" with "algebra in abstract algebra". $\endgroup$
    – zzzhhh
    Commented Apr 27, 2010 at 4:59
0
$\begingroup$

For what it's worth, a ring is an algebra over the integers.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .