Chapter One: Set Theory and Algebra

Michael Francis

February 12, 2011

1 The algebra of sets

Basic set theory is discussed here. There is a brief overview of Boolean algebras/rings. Stone’s representation
theorem for Boolean algebras is alluded to.

Definitions

Definition 1. Let R be a nonempty collection of subsets of some set X. If R satisfies

(i) A, B ∈ R implies A ∪ B ∈ R
(ii) A, B ∈ R implies A − B ∈ R

then R is called a ring (of subsets of X). If R is furthermore closed under complementation then it is called
an algebra of sets.

Note that, if R is a ring, then necessarily ∅ ∈ R. Simply consider S − S for some S ∈ R.

Note that a nonempty collection R is a ring if and only if it is closed under taking symmetric differences
and intersections. This explains the terminology since R becomes a literal ring with addition 4 and multi-
plication ∩ (this multiplication may lack a unit unless R has a largest element). The equivalence of the two
formulations may be gleaned from the following identities.

A4B = (A − B) ∪ (B − A) A ∩ B = A − (A − B) A ∪ B = A4(A ∩ B)4B A − B = A4(A ∩ B)

Note that a ring R is an algebra if (using S4X = S c ) and only if (using ∅c = X) it contains X. In this
case, X is the multiplicative unit for R.
Definition 2. A σ-ring (resp σ-algebra) of sets is a ring (resp. algebra) of sets which is closed under
countable unions.

The collection of all countable subsets of an uncountable set is an example of a σ-ring which is not a σ-algebra.

1
Exercises

Exercise 1. Simplify as much as possible:

(a) (A ∪ (B ∩ (C ∪ W c )))c
(b)
(c)

Not really a fan of this question. First part can be written (A ∪ B)c ∪ (A ∪ C ∪ W )c .
Exercise 2. Prove X = ∅ if and only if X4Y = Y (for some Y ).

Obviously if X = ∅ then X4Y = Y . Conversely, suppose X4Y = Y . Using associativity of 4 (see later
problem) we have ∅ = Y 4Y = (X4Y )4Y = X4(Y 4Y ) = X4∅ = X and we are done.
S ∞ T∞ T∞ S∞
Exercise 3. Describe in words the sets n=1 ( k=n Ak ) and n=1 ( k=n Ak ). Prove the first is a subset of
the second.

The first is the set of all x such that, for some large N , x is in all the Ak with k ≥ N (it is an ascending
union). The second is the set of all x which appear in Ak for arbitrarily large indices k (it is a descending
intersection). It is clear then that the first is a subset of the second.
Exercise 4. Prove that 4 and ∩ make a power set into a ring.

yeah no thanks.
Exercise 5. Prove (for arbitrary indexing sets) that
! !
[ [ [
Ai 4 Bi ⊂ (Ai 4Bi )
i i i

Does the containment reverse? What can be said if unions are replaced with intersections?

If x ∈ LHS then wlog there is some j so that x ∈ Aj and also x ∈

/ Bi for all i. In particular, x ∈
/ Bj ,
so x ∈ Aj 4Bj ⊂ RHS. The containment does not reverse. For example, taking A1 = B2 = {p} and
A2 = B1 = {q} we have LHS = ∅ while RHS = {p, q}.

If ∪ is replaced by ∩, then nothing can be said. Taking A1 , A2 , B1 , B2 as in the preceding example we again
have LHS = ∅ while RHS = {p, q}. Taking A1 = A2 = B1 = {p} and B2 = ∅ we have LHS = {p} and
RHS = ∅.

Note that the (original) containment could be interpreted as saying something like “the
P error
Pbetween
P the two
totals is smaller that the total of the errors”. Compare to the (obvious) inequality | ai − bi | ≤ |ai −bi |
which itself follows from the triangle inequality.
Exercise 6. For any sets A, B, C prove that A4B ⊂ (A4C) ∪ (B4C). Show the containment need not
reverse.

If x ∈ LHS then wlog x ∈ A and x ∈/ B. In the case that x ∈ C, we see x ∈ B4C ⊂ RHS. In the case that
x∈ / C, we see that x ∈ A4C ⊂ RHS, so the desired containment holds. Taking A = B = ∅ and C 6= ∅
shows the containment need not reverse.

2
Note that if we consider X4Y as a sort of measure of the distance between X, Y then the above is a sort
of triangle inequality. If we combine the error between A, C and the error between B, C then it exceeds the
error between A, B.
Exercise 7. {Mn }∞ ∞ ∞
n=1 and {Nn }n=1 are families of sets with the Nn pairwise disjoint. Let {Qn }n=1 be the

SnMn . That is Q1 = M1 and Qn = Mn − (M1 ∪ . . . ∪ Mn−1 ) for n ≥ 2. For each n,

“disjointification” of the
prove that Nn 4Qn ⊂ k=1 Nk 4Mk .

I don’t understand the motivation for this setup. But the problem is easy. When n = 1, we have equality so
there is nothing to do. Assume n ≥ 2 and suppose x ∈ LHS.

Case 1: x ∈ Qn ⊂ Mn but x ∈
/ Nn . Then x ∈ Nn 4Mn ⊂ RHS.

Case 2: x ∈ Nn but x ∈ / Qn . If x ∈/ Mn then x ∈ Nn 4Mn ⊂ RHS and we are done, so assume x ∈ Mn .

This forces x ∈ M1 ∪ . . . ∪ Mn−1 . So, x ∈ Mm for some 1 ≤ m < n. Since, the N are pairwise disjoint, we
have x ∈
/ Nm whence x ∈ Mm 4Nm ⊂ RHS.
Exercise 8. How many words of length l > 1 from an alphabet with a > 1 letters have at least two repetitions
of some fixed letter x? At least three? In how many do there occur two specific distinct distinct letters x, y?

In total there are al words. There are (a − 1)l with no occurences of x. There are l · (a − 1)l−1 with 1
occurrence of x (1st choose one of the l spots for x then fill the remaining l − 1 spots with letters that aren’t
x). So, there are al − (a − 1)l − l · (a − 1)l−1 words with 2 or more occurences of x.

We proceed as above but must also know how many words contain 2 occurences of x. There are 2l ·(a−1)l−2

of these so the answer is al − (a − 1)l − l · (a − 1)l−1 − 2l · (a − 1)l−2 .

There are (a − 1)l words where x does not appear. Likewise for y. There are (a − 2)l words where neither x
nor y appears. So, there are 2(a − 1)l − (a − 2)l words where x or y fails to appear. So, there desired total
is al − 2(a − 1)l + (a − 2)l

The techniques used for this problem are special cases of the principle of inclusion and exclusion.
Exercise 9. (a) For finite sets A, B prove |A ∪ B| = |A| + |B| − |A ∩ B|.
(b) Generalize to 3 and 4 sets.

Part a: Take some x. Let us verify it contributes 1 or 0 to the count on the LHS according as x is or is not
in A ∪ B. If x ∈ A ∪ B then x ∈ A wlog. If x ∈ B we have 1 + 1 − 1 = 1 on the RHS. If x ∈ / B we have
1 + 0 − 0 = 1 on the RHS. If x ∈
/ A ∪ B we clearly get 0 + 0 − 0 = 0 on the RHS.

Part b: The formula for 3 sets is |A ∪ B ∪ C| = |A| + |B| + |C| − |A ∩ B| − |A ∩ C| − |B ∩ C| + |A ∩ B ∩ C|.

The formula for 4 sets is |A ∪ B ∪ C ∪ D| = |A| + |B| + |C| + |D| − |A ∩ B| − |A ∩ C| − |A ∩ D| − |B ∩ C| −
|B ∩ D| − |C ∩ D| + |A ∩ B ∩ C| + |A ∩ B ∩ D| + |A ∩ C ∩ D| + |B ∩ C ∩ D| − |A ∩ B ∩ C ∩ D|.

A slick general proof is as follows. Let A1 , . . . , An be finite sets and A their union. If χS denotes the
indicator function of a set S (assuming some fixed universe), then (χA − χA1 ) · · · (χA − χAn ) is identically
zero. Expanding this and using that χS · χT = χS∩T gives the formula after rearranging.
Exercise 10. In a Boolean ring (that is a ring in which all elements are idempotent. In this book rings need
not have a unit), prove the identites

(a) x + x = 0
(b) xy = yx

3
To prove the first, note x + x = (x + x)2 = x2 + x2 + x2 + x2 = x + x + x + x whence 0 = x + x+ upon
cancelling.

To prove the second, note x + y = (x + y)2 = x2 + xy + yx + y 2 = x + xy + yx + y whence 0 = xy + yx

upon cancelling. Since part (a) showed all elements are there own additive inverses and inverses are unique
it follows that xy = yx.

Conclusion: every Boolean ring is commutative with all elements their own additive inverse - even without
assuming the existence of a multiplicative unit!

Note, when working with rings without unit, when one writes 2x (meaning x + x) we must be careful not
to think of 2 as an element of the ring (which is ok when the ring has a unit u for then we may identify 2
with u + u). In particular, it is not clear that the prime ring is a meaningful concept. Since units are not
required, hence need not be inherited by subrings, the smallest subring will always be the zero ring.
Exercise 11. 1. Let n be a square-free positive integer. Let B be the set of positive divisors of n. Prove
that B is a Boolean algebra. Represent it as an algebra of finite sets.
2. Let B be the set of all square-free positive integers. Prove that B is a Boolean ring. Represent it as a
ring of finite sets.

I’m not going to do this. It’s a little silly because they define Boolean algebras using Huntington’s charac-
terization (that absorbtion, commutativity and complements may be replaced with Huntington’s equation
in the presence of associativity and commutativity) which is, presumably, not trivial to prove and certainly
less intuitive than the formulation which follows the paradigm set by algebras of sets.

An interesting question might be to ask whether dropping the unit in a Boolean ring gives rise to essentially
the same objects as replacing the “not” of a Boolean algebra with a “relative complement”.

2 Relations and functions

The above are discussed in some detail. Note that they adopt the viewpoint that relations and functions are
simply sets of ordered pairs. In this treatment, domains are built in and codomains do not exist. In their
words, a function is indistinguishable from its graph.

Definitions

Relations are defined as sets of ordered pairs. The following concepts are definied generally for relations:

• domain: dom f = set of all first coordinates of f

• range: ran f = set of all second coordinates of f )
• inverse: f −1 = all (y, x) so that (x, y) ∈ f
• composition: g ◦ f = set of all pairs (x, z) so for some y have (x, y) ∈ f and (y, z) ∈ g
• extensions and restrictions: defined simply using containment
• Equivalence relation
• Partial order: forced reflexive by definition. x < y is employed to mean x ≤ y but x 6= y.

4
 • Total order: as a type of partitial order hence reflexive by definition.
• Well ordering: as a type of total order hence reflexive by definition.
• Minimums and maximums: defined for finite subsets of linearly ordered sets.
• Image of a set: f (A) = all y so that (x, y) ∈ f for some y ∈ A
• Inverse image of a set: defined as the image of A under f −1
• Single valued
• One-to-one: meaning f and f −1 are single valued

Finally, functions are defined as single-valued relations.

SCREW IT

3 The axiom of choice and some equivalents

In this section it is proved that AC ⇒ Tukey’s Lemma ⇒ HMP ⇒ Zorn’s Lemma ⇒ well-ordering theorem
⇒ AC.

Definitions

The Cartesian product Q of an indexed family of sets is defined as the set of all choice functions. Thus
given {Ai }i∈I defined i ∈ IAi to be the set of functions f with dom f = I such that f (i) ∈ Ai for all i ∈ I.
Special notation is used when the Ai are all equal to some fixed A - namely AI .

If S is a set, let F (S) denote the colleciton of all its finite subsets. A collection S of sets is said to have
finite character if S ∈ S ⇔ F (S) ⊂ S holds for all sets S. An example would be the collection of all
subsets of a vector space V which are linearly independent (suppose that ∅ is LI for convenience).

Notice that if S has finite character and S ∈ S then P(S) ⊂ S for given a subset T ⊂ S all the finite
subsets of T are finite subsets of S and hence in S . It follows that T ∈ S .

S that if C is a chain in a collection S of finite character then C ∈ S . Suupose F is a finite

S
Notice also
subset of C . For each x ∈ F , choose some Sx ∈ C so that x ∈ Sx . Because F is finite and C is a chain,
one of the Sx is larger than all the rest. In particular, F ⊂ Sx whence F ∈ S since Sx ∈ S .

Exposition

The five principles to be shown equivalent are as follows:

(i) The axiom of choice: if {Ai }i∈IQis a family of sets which is nonvoid in the sense that I 6= ∅ and Ai 6= ∅
for all i ∈ I, then the product i∈I Ai is nonempty. That is, there exists some choice function for the
family.
(ii) Tukey’s lemma: if S is a nonempty collection of sets with finite character, then S has a maximal
element (wrt containment).

5
(iii) The Hausdorff maximality principle: take any poset X. Consider the (new) poset of all chains in X
ordered by inclusion. This poset has a maximal element.
(iv) Zorn’s lemma: a poset in which every chain has an upper bound posesses a maximal element.
(v) The well-ordering principle: if S is any set, then there exists some well ordering on S.

Note that Tukey, HMP and Zorn have a similar flavour, all assert the existence of some maximal object. It
is in fact enough to see that the three are equivalent. We check Tukey ⇒ HMP ⇒ Zorn ⇒ Tukey.

Assume Tukey’s lemma and consider some poset X. Let C be the poset of chains in X ordered by contain-
ment. Since any subset of chain is a chain, it is clear that, for any C ∈ C all finite subsets of C are also in
C . A set S ⊂ X is a chain precisely when any 2 of its elements are comparable - that is all of its 2-element
subsets are chains. In particular, if all finite subsets of S are chains then S is a chain. Hence C has finite
character and Tukey’s lemma gives a maximal chain proving the Hausdorff maximum principle.

Assume the maximality principle and let X be a poset such that all chains possess an upper bound. Take
some maximal chain C ⊂ X and let x be an upper bound for C. If x is not maximal there is a y < x - so
y∈/ C. But then C ∪ {y} is strictly bigger than C and also still a chain using transitivity. Thus x is maximal
and Zorn’s lemma follows from the maximality principle.

Finally, assume Zorn’s lemma and consider a family F of finite character. We already observed that unions
of chains in F are again in F so the Hypotheses of Zorn’s lemma are satisfied and F indeed has a maximal
element proving Tukey’s lemma. This establishes the equivalence of the tree weird assertions.

Seemingly, there is no obvious reason for the three equivalent assertions just discussed to be much related
to well-ordering or choice. Choice seems to me a very acceptable axiom. Well-ordering seems somewhat
suspicious. It is, I think, difficult to have any intuition at all for the other three. In fact all three are
equivalent. It is easy to see that the three weird ones imply well-ordering and that well-ordering implies
choice.

We check Zorn’s lemma implies well-ordering. Let S be a (nonempty for the sake of argument) set. Consider
the set W of all well-orderings with domain contained in S. We order these by continuation. That is say
that ≤2 continues ≤1 if ≤1 ⊂≤2 and also any x ∈ dom ≤2 − ≤1 has x ≥2 y for any y ∈ dom ≤1 . It is easy
enough to check that this makes W into a poset in which all chains are bounded above (by their union). By
Zorn’s lemma then there is some maximal well ordering ≤. This must be a well-ordering on the whole of S
or else one may simply extend it by taking any x ∈ S − dom ≤ and continuing ≤ by making x bigger than
everything in dom ≤. This proves the well-ordering principile.
S
To check well-ordering implies choice is a simple matter. If {Ai }i∈I is a nonvoid family of sets, let S = i∈I Ai
and well order S. Then, setting xi to be the smallest element of the nonempty set Ai with respect to our
well-ordering of S, we obtain a choice function (xi )i∈I for our family.

In summary, it is trivial to prove:

(Tukey ⇔ Zorn ⇔ HMP) ⇒ well-ordering ⇒ AC

The story will be complete if one can show that choice implies any one of the conditions from the group on
the left. The book proves AC ⇒ Tukey, and this is probably the easiest way to go. In my opinion though,
the setting of Tukey’s lemma feels overly specific and not at all tailored to their proof. I’ll introduce an
ad hoc assertion, equivalent to which retains the key properties of Tukey but is equivalent to it and better
suited to the proof from the book.

6
Michael’s Lemma: If X is poset with smallest element 0 and such that each chain C ⊂ X posesses a LEAST
upper bound, then X has maximal elements.

Obviously, Zorn’s lemma ⇒ Michael’s lemma ⇒ Tukey’s lemma so Michael’s lemma is equivalent to the
three assertions we seek to derive from choice. The proof of choice ⇒ Michael’s lemma follows.

Suppose the AC holds and that X satisfies the hypotheses of Michael’s lemma but not the conclusions. This
implies every x ∈ X has elements strictly larger than it. Using choice, we may define a strictly increasing
function f : X → X.

Call a set Y ⊂ X f -inductive if the following are satisfied:

(i) 0 ∈ Y .
(ii) x ∈ Y ⇒ f (x) ∈ Y .
(iii) If C ⊂ Y is a chain then sup C ∈ Y .

Note that X itself is f -inductive. It is clear that the intersection of an arbitrary collection of f -inductive
sets is f -indictive, so there is a smallest f -inductive subset of X which we shall denote by A. The aim is to
show that A is a chain from which a contradiction will swiftly follow.

Let B ⊂ A be the set of all x ∈ A such that (y ∈ A and y < x) ⇒ f (y) ≤ x. We prove that if x ∈ B and
y ∈ A then either y ≤ x or f (x) ≤ y. In particular, this will show that an element of B and an element
of A are always comparable. Fix some x ∈ B and let Ax = {y ∈ A : y ≤ x or f (x) ≤ y} if we can show
Ax is f -inductive, it will follow that Ax = A. 0 ∈ A and 0 ≤ x so (i) is satisfied. Now suppose y ∈ Ax .
Since A is f -inductive, f (y) ∈ A. By definition of Ax , we have y < x, y = x or f (x) ≤ y. In the first case,
f (y) ≤ x by definition of B, so f (y) ∈ Ax . In the second case, f (x) = f (y) so f (y) ∈ Ax . In the third case,
f (x) ≤ y < f (y) so f (y) ∈ Ax . Thus Ax satisfies (ii). Finally, suppose C ⊂ Ax is a chain. Let y be the least
upper bound of C. y ∈ A since A is f -inductive. If x is an upper bound for C then y ≤ x since it is the
least upper bound whence y ∈ Ax , otherwise, there is some z ∈ C ⊂ Ax such that z ≤ x fails so f (x) ≤ z
must hold whence f (x) ≤ y since z ≤ y so y ∈ Ax and (iii) holds

Next we show that B = A by showing that B is f -inductive. 0 ∈ B vacuously since nothing is strictly smaller
than 0 so (i) holds. Suppose that x ∈ B. To show f (x) ∈ B, take y ∈ A with y < f (x). Since x ∈ B, we have
y < x, y = x or f (x) ≥ y but the third possibility is excluded since y < f (x) is assumed. In the first case,
f (y) ≤ x holds by definition of B so f (y) < f (x). In the second case f (y) = f (x). In either case, f (y) ≤ f (x)
holds so f (x) ∈ B and (ii) is proved. Finally, suppose that C ⊂ B is a chain and let x be its least upper
bound. x ∈ A automatically since A is f -inductive. Suppose that y ∈ A has y < x. We want f (y) ≤ x.
Using the claim of the preceding paragraph, we know that for every z ∈ C ⊂ B either y ≤ z or f (z) ≤ y.
If the latter holds for all z, then y is an upper bound for C hence x ≤ y contradicting our assumption that
y < x. Thus, for some x ∈ C, y ≤ z must hold. If y < z then f (y) ≤ z by definition of B so f (y) ≤ x
since x is the least upper bound of C. If y = z, then y ∈ B. Since y ≤ x, we are reduced to the second
alternative of the claim of the preceding paragraph (though x and y are now confusingly interchanged) and
f (y) ≤ x holds. This proves that x ∈ B so (iii) holds completing the proof that B is f -inductive, thus A
and B coincide.

We already observed that an element of A and of B are always comparable, so now that A = B is established
it is clear that A is a chain. However, it is impossible to have an f inductive chain. If x is the least upper
bound of A then, x ∈ A. But also, f (x) ∈ A however, f (x) > x so x cannot be a least upper bound for A.
We have finally reached our contradiction and AC ⇒ Michael’s lemma is established.