## "Union-compatible" set properties

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

shrdlu
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:00 pm UTC

### "Union-compatible" set properties

Let X be a countably infinite set. We call a property P of subsets of X special if it satisfies the rule:
(A U B) has property P if and only if at least one of A and B has property P.

Now obviously, for an element x of X, the property "the set contains x" is special.
Also, if S is a (possibly infinite) set of special properties, we can define the properties:

ANY(S) = "the set has at least one property of S", and
INF(S) = "the set has infinitely many properties of S"

It is easy to prove that the properties defined by those rules are special.

Are "special properties" known by a different name? What other methods for constructing special properties are there?

jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

### Re: "Union-compatible" set properties

A filter satisfies an extra property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_%28mathematics%29

Namely, if P is special, P(A) and P(B), then [imath]P(A\cap B).[/imath]

I don't know if it has a particular name, but there it is.

Edit: fixed some clumsiness (of course meet and join are well defined for sets doofus!)
Last edited by jestingrabbit on Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:17 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

imatrendytotebag
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:16 am UTC

### Re: "Union-compatible" set properties

Not sure about the "special name", but here is an observation:

Spoiler:
Consider the property "not P", let's call it P'. Now if A has P', then every subset of A also has P'. For if B is a subset of A and B has property P then A = B U (A - B) must have property P. Furthermore, if A has P' and B has P' then A U B must have P' (by the "if and only if" clause).

Furthermore, suppose P' is any property of sets in X such that if A has P' then all subsets of A have P' and if B also has P' then A U B has P'. Let P be the property not P'. Then if (A U B) has P, we must have A or B has P (otherwise both A and B would have P' and then their union would, too). Also, if either A or B has P then A U B must have P, since if A U B were P' then both A and B (being subsets of A U B) would be P'.

So basically, call a property Q of subsets of X "not special" if it satisfies both: A has Q implies subsets of A have Q and A, B have Q imply A U B have Q. Then the complement of a "special" property is a "not special" property and vise-versa.
Hey baby, I'm proving love at nth sight by induction and you're my base case.

elseif
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 1:45 am UTC

### Re: "Union-compatible" set properties

Your notion of special is essentially "partition regularity". The definition of partition regular given on wikipedia is that whenever A U B has the property, either A or B has the property, but I've only ever seen it used in the context of properties that are preserved by supersets (indeed, every example given on the wikipedia page is), which gives the other direction.

antonfire
Posts: 1772
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

### Re: "Union-compatible" set properties

A filter that satisfies this extra property is just an ultrafilter. Yes, they're useful. But nontrivial examples are I believe impossible to construct explicitly (without the axiom of choice).

This was dumb.
Jerry Bona wrote:The Axiom of Choice is obviously true; the Well Ordering Principle is obviously false; and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?

Posts: 809
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

### Re: "Union-compatible" set properties

No, no! Ultrafilters are really really cool!

One way to construct an ultrafilter is by picking an element t and using the property "t is in A". Such ultrafilters are called "principal" ultrafilters. Nonprincipal ultrafilters exist, but they are unconstructable. Nonetheless, they play a very important role in some parts of math, such as geometric group theory.

Sadly, I don't think ultrafilters need to be "special", though I could be wrong. I certainly doubt anyone could construct a counterexample
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!