3
$\begingroup$

A union of finite sets can always be converted to a union of finite disjoint sets.

I was wondering if a union of countable sets can always be converted to a union of countable disjoint sets? If yes how to do that?

Thanks!


Update with Paul's question:

"I wonder about the natural extension of this question to uncountable unions. Can we always refine an arbitrary set {Aα} to {Bα} (i.e. with Bα⊂Aα for each α) such that ⋃αBα=⋃αAα? The answer below uses countability pretty blatantly and I can't think of a way to do it without. "

Thanks!

  • 0
    I wonder about the natural extension of this question to uncountable unions. Can we always refine an arbitrary set $\{A_\alpha\}$ to $\{B_\alpha\}$ (i.e. with $B_\alpha\subset A_\alpha$ for each $\alpha$) such that $\bigcup_\alpha B_\alpha=\bigcup_\alpha A_\alpha$? The answer below uses countability pretty blatantly and I can't think of a way to do it without.2010-10-28
  • 0
    I also would like to know about that! I will add it to my post.2010-10-28
  • 1
    @Paul: You could use a well-ordering of the index set to do the same thing in the uncountable case. But I don't know what can be said without the axiom of choice.2010-10-28

1 Answers 1

12

Given $A_1,A_2,\ldots$, let $B_1=A_1$, and for $n\gt1$, $B_n=A_n\setminus\cup_{k=1}^{n-1}A_k$. Then for $m\lt n$, $B_m$ is contained in $A_m$ while $B_n$ is contained in $A_n\setminus A_m$, so $B_m$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. You can check that $\cup_{k=1}^n B_k=\cup_{k=1}^n A_k$ for all $n$, and $\cup_{k=1}^\infty B_k=\cup_{k=1}^\infty A_k$.

If you have a collection of sets indexed by an arbitrary set, then assuming the axiom of choice you can put a well-order on the index set. Given $\{A_i\}_{i\in I}$, where $(I,\lt)$ is a well-ordered set, we can define $\{B_i\}_{i\in I}$ as follows. Let $B_{i_0}=A_{i_0}$, where $i_0$ is the least element of $I$, and for $i\gt i_0$, $B_i=A_i\setminus\cup_{j\lt i}A_j$.

  • 0
    Thank you, Jonas! Do you know about the way for the uncountable case as asked by Paul?2010-10-28
  • 0
    The difference is that to show that the unions are equal you can use transfinite induction, instead of ordinary induction. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in set theory will correct me if I've made a mistake.2010-10-28
  • 0
    +1 for answering the general case. Well-ordering rules!2010-10-28