It is consistent with ${\sf ZF}$ that the reals are the countable union of countable sets. Since any countable set is Borel, it follows that in any such pathological universe, let's call it $W$, every set is Borel; this has come out here before.

Since there is a countable basis for the Borel sets, it follows that in $W$ there is a countable family of sets of reals, such that the $\sigma$-algebra they generate is all of ${\mathcal P}({\mathbb R})$. I would like to see whether we can improve this slightly:

Suppose ${\mathbb R}=\bigcup_n A_n$, where each $A_n$ is countable. Can we further assert that, in addition, the $\sigma$-algebra the $A_n$ generate is ${\mathcal P}({\mathbb R})$? More precisely, can we modify the $A_n$ to a new family $A_n'$ of countable sets with union ${\mathbb R}$ and this generating property?

Asaf's answer shows I'm being (somewhat) sloppy in this formulation. So, does it make sense to ask for some intrinsic construction? (Something other than: We start with such and such countable family that generates the Borel sets, we code it into bits of the $A_n$, and then we are done. I confess I do not see immediately how to formalize "intrinsic", perhaps it makes no sense.)

  • $\begingroup$ Andres, I think I must not understand the first question. If say $\{0,1\} \subseteq A_n$ for all $n$, then you can never separate $0$ and $1$ in the generated $\sigma$-algebra. $\endgroup$ – Clinton Conley Mar 24 '12 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ OK, now I understand. I thought you were asking whether the first sentence implied the second, not whether it was possible to satisfy both simultaneously. Good question! $\endgroup$ – Clinton Conley Mar 24 '12 at 0:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Andres, I recently posted an answer to an question of mine, mathoverflow.net/questions/86621/…, in which I cite a paper by Truss in which every set is Borel, but countable unions of countable sets are countable. Pretty weird, eh? Anyhow, I thought it might interest you to know that $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ can be countably generated even if $\mathbb R$ is not the countable union of countable sets. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 19 '12 at 6:26

We can cheat in the following way:

Suppose $\lbrace A_n\rbrace$ is a countable collection of countable sets, let $\lbrace B_n\rbrace$ be an enumeration of the countable collection of open intervals with rational end points.

Now consider the family $\lbrace A_n\cap B_m\mid n,m\in\omega\rbrace$. It is a countable family of countable sets, and every open interval $B_k$ is the countable union $\bigcup_n(A_n\cap B_k)$. Therefore the $\sigma$-algebra generated by this family is the entire power set of the real numbers.

The reason we cannot talk much about the general case is that given a countable family of countable sets $\lbrace A_n\rbrace$ we can make them disjoint via $A'_n=A_n\setminus\bigcup_{k < n} A_k$. The $A'_n$ are still countable, disjoint and have the same union - namely $\mathbb R$.

Now the $\sigma$-algebra the disjoint family generates is exactly $\lbrace\bigcup_{i\in I} A'_i\mid I\subseteq\omega\rbrace$. Since there can only be countably many singletons in this family we cannot separate all the points of $\mathbb R$ from one another and therefore we cannot generate $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$.

So if the $A_n$ were already disjoint we could not have generated $\mathcal P(\mathbb R)$ without some sort of modification as in the first part.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, sure. But isn't there some intrinsic way of achieving this result? Perhaps this is as intrinsic as it gets... $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Mar 24 '12 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ Andres, I think it is. I was thinking what happens if we "disjointify" the family. The $\sigma$-algebra becomes just all the countable combinations of elements. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 24 '12 at 8:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A necessary and sufficient combinatorial condition (in this model) for $\{A_n\}$ to generate the full power set $\sigma$-algebra is for $\{A_n\}$ to separate points (i.e., for all $X \in [\mathbb{R}]^2$, there exists an $n$ such that $|A_n \cap X|=1$). With this in mind, Asaf's argument localizes in the sense that you can build $B_n \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ such that $\bigcup_{n < \kappa} A_n = \bigcup_{n < \kappa} A_n$ for $\kappa \in \{1,2, \ldots, \aleph_0\}$ and moreover $\{B_n\}$ separates points. [cont] $\endgroup$ – Clinton Conley Mar 24 '12 at 13:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (Sorry, I meant $\bigcup_{n < \kappa} B_n = \bigcup_{n < \kappa} A_n$ above.) However, every way I see of performing this alteration uses either an external separating family for $\mathbb{R}$ or induces a simultaneous enumeration of the $A_n$s (which of course is no good in this model). But this is probably just a failure of imagination. $\endgroup$ – Clinton Conley Mar 24 '12 at 13:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.