0

How is closed under finite union not the same as closed under countable union?

I know that closed under countable union should be a stronger requirement than closed under finite union. So why does the following argument not work?

Let {$A_1,A_2,...$} be a countably infinite sequence of sets in F. Then if F is closed under countable union, the countable union of {$A_1,A_2,...$} should also be in F.

However, If we assume F was closed only under finite union, couldn't you use induction to show that the countable union of {$A_1,A_2,...$} will also be in F? That is $A_1 \bigcup A_2$ is in F, $A_1 \bigcup A_2 \bigcup A_3$ in in F and so on..

spaceisdarkgreen
  • 58,508
Qwertford
  • 835
  • Finite unions of finite sets are finite. Countable unions of finite sets don't have to be. But generally speaking, it's good to put context in your question. What's $F$? – Asaf Karagila Jun 13 '19 at 09:34
  • F is a set of sets. also, I see what you mean, that answers my question. – Qwertford Jun 13 '19 at 09:38
  • 1
    Since every finite set is bounded, wouldn't the same process show that every countable set is bounded? – N. S. Jun 13 '19 at 09:43
  • Let me link to a few threads that might be enlightening, given your suggestion to use induction. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1437036/ https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/307277/ https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/717961/ – Asaf Karagila Jun 13 '19 at 09:46

1 Answers1

1

The standard counterexample goes something like this.

Take $A_n = \{0,1,\dots,n\}$, and let $S$ be the collections of all sets $A_n$. Then we have that finite unions, say $\bigcup_k A_{n_k}$, that this belongs to $S$, just by considering that the $A_{\max {n_k}}$ will be a element of $S$.

But consider the countable union $\bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} A_n = \{1, 2, \dots\}$. This is not an element of $S$, which can be shown by a simple argument from contradiction, and follows from the fact that this is no longer a finite set.

twnly
  • 1,700