Basic properties and intuition behind an independent family of subsets of a set.












2














Ultimately I'm trying to understand the result that for a set X the number of ultrafilters on X is equal to $2^{2^{|X|}}$. The proofs I've found use the notion of an independent family of subsets of X. My question has some parts:
(1) What is the origin of this idea of independent family of subsets and what was it's motivation, i.e. what is it capturing?
(2) Is there a basic treatment somewhere? I've been trying to figure out more about it, but the definitions vary a bit. In general it looks something like:



Definition Let X be a set. Let $mathscr{A}$ be a collection of subsets of X. $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets of X if, whenever $mathscr{F}subsetmathscr{A}$ and $mathscr{G}subsetmathscr{A}$ are finite and disjoint,



$$(bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{F}}A)cap (bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{G}}A^{c})neqemptyset$$



Sometimes it's stated that the intersection is not only nonempty but has a particular cardinality, but I don't think that matters for the ultrafilter argument.



For a independent family of subsets it would seem as though it's a stronger property than the finite intersection property. We need at least that otherwise there would be ways of choosing $mathscr{F}$ such that $cap_{Ainmathscr{F}}A=emptyset$ and then the rest of the big ole intersection would fail.



Also it would seem that for any subsets A and B of X, if $Acup B=X$, then you cannot have both A and B in the set since their intersection of their complements would be empty. Likewise we can't have the empty set or X in the family $mathscr{A}$ because of complements.



I have been looking for treatments of this topic but I've missed something very obvious I'm willing to take some well meaning abuse :)










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Considered hiw many untrafilters there is on a finite set.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 19 at 0:29










  • I'm not sure how that helps, it's clearly |X|=n because every ultrafilter on a finite set is principal. Can you elaborate how that might lead me to think about independent families of subsets?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:01
















2














Ultimately I'm trying to understand the result that for a set X the number of ultrafilters on X is equal to $2^{2^{|X|}}$. The proofs I've found use the notion of an independent family of subsets of X. My question has some parts:
(1) What is the origin of this idea of independent family of subsets and what was it's motivation, i.e. what is it capturing?
(2) Is there a basic treatment somewhere? I've been trying to figure out more about it, but the definitions vary a bit. In general it looks something like:



Definition Let X be a set. Let $mathscr{A}$ be a collection of subsets of X. $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets of X if, whenever $mathscr{F}subsetmathscr{A}$ and $mathscr{G}subsetmathscr{A}$ are finite and disjoint,



$$(bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{F}}A)cap (bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{G}}A^{c})neqemptyset$$



Sometimes it's stated that the intersection is not only nonempty but has a particular cardinality, but I don't think that matters for the ultrafilter argument.



For a independent family of subsets it would seem as though it's a stronger property than the finite intersection property. We need at least that otherwise there would be ways of choosing $mathscr{F}$ such that $cap_{Ainmathscr{F}}A=emptyset$ and then the rest of the big ole intersection would fail.



Also it would seem that for any subsets A and B of X, if $Acup B=X$, then you cannot have both A and B in the set since their intersection of their complements would be empty. Likewise we can't have the empty set or X in the family $mathscr{A}$ because of complements.



I have been looking for treatments of this topic but I've missed something very obvious I'm willing to take some well meaning abuse :)










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Considered hiw many untrafilters there is on a finite set.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 19 at 0:29










  • I'm not sure how that helps, it's clearly |X|=n because every ultrafilter on a finite set is principal. Can you elaborate how that might lead me to think about independent families of subsets?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:01














2












2








2







Ultimately I'm trying to understand the result that for a set X the number of ultrafilters on X is equal to $2^{2^{|X|}}$. The proofs I've found use the notion of an independent family of subsets of X. My question has some parts:
(1) What is the origin of this idea of independent family of subsets and what was it's motivation, i.e. what is it capturing?
(2) Is there a basic treatment somewhere? I've been trying to figure out more about it, but the definitions vary a bit. In general it looks something like:



Definition Let X be a set. Let $mathscr{A}$ be a collection of subsets of X. $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets of X if, whenever $mathscr{F}subsetmathscr{A}$ and $mathscr{G}subsetmathscr{A}$ are finite and disjoint,



$$(bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{F}}A)cap (bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{G}}A^{c})neqemptyset$$



Sometimes it's stated that the intersection is not only nonempty but has a particular cardinality, but I don't think that matters for the ultrafilter argument.



For a independent family of subsets it would seem as though it's a stronger property than the finite intersection property. We need at least that otherwise there would be ways of choosing $mathscr{F}$ such that $cap_{Ainmathscr{F}}A=emptyset$ and then the rest of the big ole intersection would fail.



Also it would seem that for any subsets A and B of X, if $Acup B=X$, then you cannot have both A and B in the set since their intersection of their complements would be empty. Likewise we can't have the empty set or X in the family $mathscr{A}$ because of complements.



I have been looking for treatments of this topic but I've missed something very obvious I'm willing to take some well meaning abuse :)










share|cite|improve this question













Ultimately I'm trying to understand the result that for a set X the number of ultrafilters on X is equal to $2^{2^{|X|}}$. The proofs I've found use the notion of an independent family of subsets of X. My question has some parts:
(1) What is the origin of this idea of independent family of subsets and what was it's motivation, i.e. what is it capturing?
(2) Is there a basic treatment somewhere? I've been trying to figure out more about it, but the definitions vary a bit. In general it looks something like:



Definition Let X be a set. Let $mathscr{A}$ be a collection of subsets of X. $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets of X if, whenever $mathscr{F}subsetmathscr{A}$ and $mathscr{G}subsetmathscr{A}$ are finite and disjoint,



$$(bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{F}}A)cap (bigcaplimits_{Ainmathscr{G}}A^{c})neqemptyset$$



Sometimes it's stated that the intersection is not only nonempty but has a particular cardinality, but I don't think that matters for the ultrafilter argument.



For a independent family of subsets it would seem as though it's a stronger property than the finite intersection property. We need at least that otherwise there would be ways of choosing $mathscr{F}$ such that $cap_{Ainmathscr{F}}A=emptyset$ and then the rest of the big ole intersection would fail.



Also it would seem that for any subsets A and B of X, if $Acup B=X$, then you cannot have both A and B in the set since their intersection of their complements would be empty. Likewise we can't have the empty set or X in the family $mathscr{A}$ because of complements.



I have been looking for treatments of this topic but I've missed something very obvious I'm willing to take some well meaning abuse :)







general-topology set-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 18 at 14:45









kevin roberge

112




112












  • Considered hiw many untrafilters there is on a finite set.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 19 at 0:29










  • I'm not sure how that helps, it's clearly |X|=n because every ultrafilter on a finite set is principal. Can you elaborate how that might lead me to think about independent families of subsets?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:01


















  • Considered hiw many untrafilters there is on a finite set.
    – William Elliot
    Nov 19 at 0:29










  • I'm not sure how that helps, it's clearly |X|=n because every ultrafilter on a finite set is principal. Can you elaborate how that might lead me to think about independent families of subsets?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:01
















Considered hiw many untrafilters there is on a finite set.
– William Elliot
Nov 19 at 0:29




Considered hiw many untrafilters there is on a finite set.
– William Elliot
Nov 19 at 0:29












I'm not sure how that helps, it's clearly |X|=n because every ultrafilter on a finite set is principal. Can you elaborate how that might lead me to think about independent families of subsets?
– kevin roberge
Nov 19 at 14:01




I'm not sure how that helps, it's clearly |X|=n because every ultrafilter on a finite set is principal. Can you elaborate how that might lead me to think about independent families of subsets?
– kevin roberge
Nov 19 at 14:01










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0














Let $mathcal F$ be a family of subsets of some set $X$, and suppose we play the following game. I pick some $Ainmathcal F$ and tell you which $A$ it is; I tell you that I'm thinking of some $xin X$ but I don't tell you which $x$ it is; you're supposed to guess whether $xin A$. Before you make your guess, you're allowed to ask me questions "Is $xin B$?" for any $Binmathcal F$ except that $B$ can't be $A$ (i.e., you can't ask me the question you're supposed to guess the answer to). You can ask lots of these questions, but at some point (after finitely many of your questions have been answered) you have to give your answer, either $xin A$ or $xnotin A$. At that point, if I can find an $xin X$ for which all my answers to your questions are correct but your decision about $xin A$ is incorrect, then I win; otherwise, you win.



To say that $mathcal F$ is an independent family is equivalent to saying that I can answer your questions completely arbitrarily (flipping a coin or just saying whatever comes to mind) as long as, if you ask the same question twice then I give the same answer both times, and then, whatever answer you decide about $xin A$, I can still find an $x$ to win the game.



In other words, no matter how much information you collect from me about $xin B$ for various (finitely many) $Binscr F$, it doesn't help you determine whether $xin A$; I can always find an $x$ consistent with my answers yet violating yours.



I think this makes the terminology "independent" quite reasonable: Information about some members of $mathcal F$ tells you nothing about other members.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:13










  • Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:29










  • To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
    – Andreas Blass
    Nov 19 at 15:29











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003617%2fbasic-properties-and-intuition-behind-an-independent-family-of-subsets-of-a-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0














Let $mathcal F$ be a family of subsets of some set $X$, and suppose we play the following game. I pick some $Ainmathcal F$ and tell you which $A$ it is; I tell you that I'm thinking of some $xin X$ but I don't tell you which $x$ it is; you're supposed to guess whether $xin A$. Before you make your guess, you're allowed to ask me questions "Is $xin B$?" for any $Binmathcal F$ except that $B$ can't be $A$ (i.e., you can't ask me the question you're supposed to guess the answer to). You can ask lots of these questions, but at some point (after finitely many of your questions have been answered) you have to give your answer, either $xin A$ or $xnotin A$. At that point, if I can find an $xin X$ for which all my answers to your questions are correct but your decision about $xin A$ is incorrect, then I win; otherwise, you win.



To say that $mathcal F$ is an independent family is equivalent to saying that I can answer your questions completely arbitrarily (flipping a coin or just saying whatever comes to mind) as long as, if you ask the same question twice then I give the same answer both times, and then, whatever answer you decide about $xin A$, I can still find an $x$ to win the game.



In other words, no matter how much information you collect from me about $xin B$ for various (finitely many) $Binscr F$, it doesn't help you determine whether $xin A$; I can always find an $x$ consistent with my answers yet violating yours.



I think this makes the terminology "independent" quite reasonable: Information about some members of $mathcal F$ tells you nothing about other members.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:13










  • Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:29










  • To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
    – Andreas Blass
    Nov 19 at 15:29
















0














Let $mathcal F$ be a family of subsets of some set $X$, and suppose we play the following game. I pick some $Ainmathcal F$ and tell you which $A$ it is; I tell you that I'm thinking of some $xin X$ but I don't tell you which $x$ it is; you're supposed to guess whether $xin A$. Before you make your guess, you're allowed to ask me questions "Is $xin B$?" for any $Binmathcal F$ except that $B$ can't be $A$ (i.e., you can't ask me the question you're supposed to guess the answer to). You can ask lots of these questions, but at some point (after finitely many of your questions have been answered) you have to give your answer, either $xin A$ or $xnotin A$. At that point, if I can find an $xin X$ for which all my answers to your questions are correct but your decision about $xin A$ is incorrect, then I win; otherwise, you win.



To say that $mathcal F$ is an independent family is equivalent to saying that I can answer your questions completely arbitrarily (flipping a coin or just saying whatever comes to mind) as long as, if you ask the same question twice then I give the same answer both times, and then, whatever answer you decide about $xin A$, I can still find an $x$ to win the game.



In other words, no matter how much information you collect from me about $xin B$ for various (finitely many) $Binscr F$, it doesn't help you determine whether $xin A$; I can always find an $x$ consistent with my answers yet violating yours.



I think this makes the terminology "independent" quite reasonable: Information about some members of $mathcal F$ tells you nothing about other members.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:13










  • Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:29










  • To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
    – Andreas Blass
    Nov 19 at 15:29














0












0








0






Let $mathcal F$ be a family of subsets of some set $X$, and suppose we play the following game. I pick some $Ainmathcal F$ and tell you which $A$ it is; I tell you that I'm thinking of some $xin X$ but I don't tell you which $x$ it is; you're supposed to guess whether $xin A$. Before you make your guess, you're allowed to ask me questions "Is $xin B$?" for any $Binmathcal F$ except that $B$ can't be $A$ (i.e., you can't ask me the question you're supposed to guess the answer to). You can ask lots of these questions, but at some point (after finitely many of your questions have been answered) you have to give your answer, either $xin A$ or $xnotin A$. At that point, if I can find an $xin X$ for which all my answers to your questions are correct but your decision about $xin A$ is incorrect, then I win; otherwise, you win.



To say that $mathcal F$ is an independent family is equivalent to saying that I can answer your questions completely arbitrarily (flipping a coin or just saying whatever comes to mind) as long as, if you ask the same question twice then I give the same answer both times, and then, whatever answer you decide about $xin A$, I can still find an $x$ to win the game.



In other words, no matter how much information you collect from me about $xin B$ for various (finitely many) $Binscr F$, it doesn't help you determine whether $xin A$; I can always find an $x$ consistent with my answers yet violating yours.



I think this makes the terminology "independent" quite reasonable: Information about some members of $mathcal F$ tells you nothing about other members.






share|cite|improve this answer












Let $mathcal F$ be a family of subsets of some set $X$, and suppose we play the following game. I pick some $Ainmathcal F$ and tell you which $A$ it is; I tell you that I'm thinking of some $xin X$ but I don't tell you which $x$ it is; you're supposed to guess whether $xin A$. Before you make your guess, you're allowed to ask me questions "Is $xin B$?" for any $Binmathcal F$ except that $B$ can't be $A$ (i.e., you can't ask me the question you're supposed to guess the answer to). You can ask lots of these questions, but at some point (after finitely many of your questions have been answered) you have to give your answer, either $xin A$ or $xnotin A$. At that point, if I can find an $xin X$ for which all my answers to your questions are correct but your decision about $xin A$ is incorrect, then I win; otherwise, you win.



To say that $mathcal F$ is an independent family is equivalent to saying that I can answer your questions completely arbitrarily (flipping a coin or just saying whatever comes to mind) as long as, if you ask the same question twice then I give the same answer both times, and then, whatever answer you decide about $xin A$, I can still find an $x$ to win the game.



In other words, no matter how much information you collect from me about $xin B$ for various (finitely many) $Binscr F$, it doesn't help you determine whether $xin A$; I can always find an $x$ consistent with my answers yet violating yours.



I think this makes the terminology "independent" quite reasonable: Information about some members of $mathcal F$ tells you nothing about other members.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 19 at 1:51









Andreas Blass

49.3k351106




49.3k351106












  • Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:13










  • Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:29










  • To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
    – Andreas Blass
    Nov 19 at 15:29


















  • Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:13










  • Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
    – kevin roberge
    Nov 19 at 14:29










  • To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
    – Andreas Blass
    Nov 19 at 15:29
















Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
– kevin roberge
Nov 19 at 14:13




Oh interesting. Let me see if I understand.
– kevin roberge
Nov 19 at 14:13












Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
– kevin roberge
Nov 19 at 14:29




Sorry (hit enter too quickly, ran out of edit time) Ok. So to refer back to the definition I stated in my question $mathscr{F}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "yes" and $mathscr{G}$ is the set of subsets I asked about that you replied "no." If the collection $mathscr{A}$ is an independent family of subsets then the elements that are in the subsets in $mathscr{F}$ and not in the subsets of $mathscr{G}$ form a nonempty subset of X. The fact that the intersection is non empty gives you the wiggle room to find an $x$ consistent with your answers yet violating mine?
– kevin roberge
Nov 19 at 14:29












To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 19 at 15:29




To make my description match the definition of "independent", begin with F and G as in your comment but then also put A into F if you guessed "no" and put A into G if you guessed "yes". So the intersection in the definition is the set of x's for which all my answers are right but your answer is wrong, i.e., it's the set of x's that I can use to win the game.
– Andreas Blass
Nov 19 at 15:29


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003617%2fbasic-properties-and-intuition-behind-an-independent-family-of-subsets-of-a-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater