Enveloping von Neumann algebra: Difference between revisions
en>Reedy Bot →Properties: Tagging for AFT v5 |
en>Toby Bartels m Terminology |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In [[mathematics]], '''contour sets''' [[Generalization|generalize]] and [[Formal system|formalize]] the everyday notions of | |||
*everything superior to something | |||
*everything superior or equivalent to something | |||
*everything inferior to something | |||
*everything inferior or equivalent to something. | |||
== Formal definitions == | |||
Given a [[Relation (mathematics)|relation]] on pairs of [[Element (mathematics)|element]]s of [[Set (mathematics)|set]] <math>X</math> | |||
:<math>\succcurlyeq~\subseteq~X^2</math> | |||
and an element <math>x</math> of <math>X</math> | |||
:<math>x\in X</math> | |||
The '''upper contour set''' of <math>x</math> is the set of all <math>y</math> that are related to <math>x</math>: | |||
:<math>\left\{ y~\backepsilon~y\succcurlyeq x\right\}</math> | |||
The '''lower contour set''' of <math>x</math> is the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>x</math> is related to them: | |||
:<math>\left\{ y~\backepsilon~x\succcurlyeq y\right\}</math> | |||
The '''strict upper contour set''' of <math>x</math> is the set of all <math>y</math> that are related to <math>x</math> without <math>x</math> being ''in this way'' related to any of them: | |||
:<math>\left\{ y~\backepsilon~(y\succcurlyeq x)\land\lnot(x\succcurlyeq y)\right\}</math> | |||
The '''strict lower contour set''' of <math>x</math> is the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>x</math> is related to them without any of them being ''in this way'' related to <math>x</math>: | |||
:<math>\left\{ y~\backepsilon~(x\succcurlyeq y)\land\lnot(y\succcurlyeq x)\right\}</math> | |||
The formal expressions of the last two may be simplified if we have defined | |||
:<math>\succ~=~\left\{ \left(a,b\right)~\backepsilon~\left(a\succcurlyeq b\right)\land\lnot(b\succcurlyeq a)\right\}</math> | |||
so that <math>a</math> is related to <math>b</math> but <math>b</math> is ''not'' related to <math>a</math>, in which case the strict upper contour set of <math>x</math> is | |||
:<math>\left\{ y~\backepsilon~y\succ x\right\}</math> | |||
and the strict lower contour set of <math>x</math> is | |||
:<math>\left\{ y~\backepsilon~x\succ y\right\}</math> | |||
=== Contour sets of a function === | |||
In the case of a [[Function (mathematics)|function]] <math>f()</math> considered in terms of relation <math>\triangleright</math>, reference to the contour sets of the function is implicitly to the contour sets of the implied relation | |||
:<math>(a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow~[f(a)\triangleright f(b)]</math> | |||
== Examples == | |||
=== Arithmetic === | |||
Consider a [[real number]] <math>x</math>, and the relation [[Inequality (mathematics)|<math>\ge</math>]]. Then | |||
* the upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of numbers that were ''greater than or equal'' to <math>x</math>, | |||
* the ''strict'' upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of numbers that were ''greater'' than <math>x</math>, | |||
* the lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of numbers that were ''less than or equal'' to <math>x</math>, and | |||
* the ''strict'' lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of numbers that were ''less'' than <math>x</math>. | |||
Consider, more generally, the relation | |||
:<math>(a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow~[f(a)\ge f(b)]</math> | |||
Then | |||
* the upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>f(y)\ge f(x)</math>, | |||
* the ''strict'' upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>f(y)>f(x)</math>, | |||
* the lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>f(x)\ge f(y)</math>, and | |||
* the ''strict'' lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>f(x)>f(y)</math>. | |||
It would be ''technically'' possible to define contour sets in terms of the relation | |||
:<math>(a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow~[f(a)\le f(b)]</math> | |||
though such definitions would tend to confound ready understanding. | |||
In the case of a real-valued function <math>f()</math> (whose arguments might or might not be themselves real numbers), reference to the contour sets of the function is implicitly to the contour sets of the relation | |||
:<math>(a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow~[f(a)\ge f(b)]</math> | |||
Note that the arguments to <math>f()</math> might be [[Tuple|vector]]s, and that the [[Mathematical notation|notation]] used might instead be | |||
:<math>[(a_1 ,a_2 ,\ldots)\succcurlyeq(b_1 ,b_2 ,\ldots)]~\Leftarrow~[f(a_1 ,a_2 ,\ldots)\ge f(b_1 ,b_2 ,\ldots)]</math> | |||
=== Economic === | |||
In [[economics]], the set <math>X</math> could be interpreted as a set of [[Good (economics and accounting)|goods and services]] or of possible [[Outcome (game theory)|outcomes]], the relation <math>\succ</math> as ''strict [[preference]]'', and the relationship <math>\succcurlyeq</math> as ''weak preference''. Then | |||
* the upper contour set, or '''better set''',<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title = Economic Exchange and Social Organization: The Edgeworthian Foundations of General Equilibrium Theory|last = Robert P. Gilles|first = |publisher = Springer|year = 1996|isbn = |location = |pages = 35|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=ZyahaTvMB3cC&lpg=PA35&ots=4CelGh9izH&dq=%22better%20set%22%20economics&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=%22better%20set%22%20}}</ref> of <math>x</math> would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were ''at least as desired'' as <math>x</math>, | |||
* the ''strict'' upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were ''more desired'' than <math>x</math>, | |||
* the lower contour set, or '''worse set''',<ref name=":0" /> of <math>x</math> would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were ''no more desired'' than <math>x</math>, and | |||
* the ''strict'' lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were ''less desired'' than <math>x</math>. | |||
Such preferences might be captured by a [[utility]] function <math>u()</math>, in which case | |||
* the upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>u(y)\ge u(x)</math>, | |||
* the ''strict'' upper contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>u(y)>u(x)</math>, | |||
* the lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>u(x)\ge u(y)</math>, and | |||
* the ''strict'' lower contour set of <math>x</math> would be the set of all <math>y</math> such that <math>u(x)>u(y)</math>. | |||
== Complementarity == | |||
On the assumption that <math>\succcurlyeq</math> is a [[total order]]ing of <math>X</math>, the [[Complement (set theory)|complement]] of the upper contour set is the strict lower contour set. | |||
:<math>X^2\backslash\left\{ y~\backepsilon~y\succcurlyeq x\right\}=\left\{ y~\backepsilon~x\succ y\right\}</math> | |||
:<math>X^2\backslash\left\{ y~\backepsilon~x\succ y\right\}=\left\{ y~\backepsilon~y\succcurlyeq x\right\}</math> | |||
and the complement of the strict upper contour set is the lower contour set. | |||
:<math>X^2\backslash\left\{ y~\backepsilon~y\succ x\right\}=\left\{ y~\backepsilon~x\succcurlyeq y\right\}</math> | |||
:<math>X^2\backslash\left\{ y~\backepsilon~x\succcurlyeq y\right\}=\left\{ y~\backepsilon~y\succ x\right\}</math> | |||
== See also == | |||
*[[Epigraph (mathematics)|Epigraph]] | |||
*[[Hypograph (mathematics)|Hypograph]] | |||
==References== | |||
<references /> | |||
== Bibliography == | |||
* [[Andreu Mas-Colell]], Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, ''Microeconomic Theory'' ({{LCC|HB172.M6247 1995}}), p43. ISBN 0-19-507340-1 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-510268-1 (paper) | |||
<!-- Yeah, we could use more references, but I'm going to post this article now. --> | |||
[[Category:Mathematical relations]] | |||
[[Category:Microeconomics]] |
Revision as of 02:12, 30 September 2013
In mathematics, contour sets generalize and formalize the everyday notions of
- everything superior to something
- everything superior or equivalent to something
- everything inferior to something
- everything inferior or equivalent to something.
Formal definitions
Given a relation on pairs of elements of set
The upper contour set of is the set of all that are related to :
The lower contour set of is the set of all such that is related to them:
The strict upper contour set of is the set of all that are related to without being in this way related to any of them:
The strict lower contour set of is the set of all such that is related to them without any of them being in this way related to :
The formal expressions of the last two may be simplified if we have defined
so that is related to but is not related to , in which case the strict upper contour set of is
and the strict lower contour set of is
Contour sets of a function
In the case of a function considered in terms of relation , reference to the contour sets of the function is implicitly to the contour sets of the implied relation
Examples
Arithmetic
Consider a real number , and the relation . Then
- the upper contour set of would be the set of numbers that were greater than or equal to ,
- the strict upper contour set of would be the set of numbers that were greater than ,
- the lower contour set of would be the set of numbers that were less than or equal to , and
- the strict lower contour set of would be the set of numbers that were less than .
Consider, more generally, the relation
Then
- the upper contour set of would be the set of all such that ,
- the strict upper contour set of would be the set of all such that ,
- the lower contour set of would be the set of all such that , and
- the strict lower contour set of would be the set of all such that .
It would be technically possible to define contour sets in terms of the relation
though such definitions would tend to confound ready understanding.
In the case of a real-valued function (whose arguments might or might not be themselves real numbers), reference to the contour sets of the function is implicitly to the contour sets of the relation
Note that the arguments to might be vectors, and that the notation used might instead be
Economic
In economics, the set could be interpreted as a set of goods and services or of possible outcomes, the relation as strict preference, and the relationship as weak preference. Then
- the upper contour set, or better set,[1] of would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were at least as desired as ,
- the strict upper contour set of would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were more desired than ,
- the lower contour set, or worse set,[1] of would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were no more desired than , and
- the strict lower contour set of would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were less desired than .
Such preferences might be captured by a utility function , in which case
- the upper contour set of would be the set of all such that ,
- the strict upper contour set of would be the set of all such that ,
- the lower contour set of would be the set of all such that , and
- the strict lower contour set of would be the set of all such that .
Complementarity
On the assumption that is a total ordering of , the complement of the upper contour set is the strict lower contour set.
and the complement of the strict upper contour set is the lower contour set.
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 20 year-old Real Estate Agent Rusty from Saint-Paul, has hobbies and interests which includes monopoly, property developers in singapore and poker. Will soon undertake a contiki trip that may include going to the Lower Valley of the Omo.
My blog: http://www.primaboinca.com/view_profile.php?userid=5889534
Bibliography
- Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory (Template:LCC), p43. ISBN 0-19-507340-1 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-510268-1 (paper)