I have a question very similar to Finite ring of sets
For a given set U, the set R of subsets is a ring under the operations of symmetric difference ($\bigtriangleup$) and intersection ($\cap$).
Given a finite set V of subsets of U, the set W generated by V is a subring of R. I.e., W is the set with the following two properties:
1) $V \subset W$
2) If $a \in W$ and $b \in W$, then $a \cap b \in W$ and $a \bigtriangleup b \in W$.
My question is: Why is W finite?
This is clear when I draw a picture. If I start with a fixed set of subsets of U, and start drawing intersections and symmetric differences, and keep enlarging the set by the results, I eventually exhaust all the possibilities.
Clearly this is not true for general rings generated by a finite set. For example, given the finite set $\{1,-1\} \subset Z$, the generated set is all the integers.
One way to argue this is with a VERY BIG HAMMER which I'd like to avoid.
Assume we have two boolean expressions in Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF), I can express the intersection and symmetric differences of the two expressions also in DNF. And there is only a finite number, $2^{2^N}$, of possible DNFs of N variables.
I hope there's a simpler way to argue this other than resorting to DNF representations.
Let R be a ring, and $V \subset R$ be finite. Define set W as the smallest set obeying the following two properties
$V \subset W$
If $a \in W$ and $b \in W$, then $a+b \in W$ and $a \cdot b \in W$
It is not true in general that W is therefore finite. But in the case of the ring of subsets, W is finite. Perhaps it stems from the fact that $A \cap A = A$ and $A \bigtriangleup A = \emptyset$?
– Jim Newton Dec 18 '16 at 14:38BTW, Ethan, thanks for the help. I'm working on an article wherein this is something I need to claim/prove/cite before going on to my actual thesis. If you send me your credentials, I'll be happy to site you in the article.
– Jim Newton Dec 18 '16 at 16:30