Register to reply

Continuity of Measure ( I Think)

by WWGD
Tags: continuity, measure
Share this thread:
WWGD
#1
Feb27-13, 07:30 PM
P: 599
Hi, All:

I think the following deals with continuity of measure, but I'm not 100%:

Let I:=[0,1] , and let An be a sequence of pairwise-disjoint measurable sets
whose union is I ( is me? :) ) . Let {Bj} be a sequence of measurable subsets
of I , so that, for μ the standard Lebesgue measure:

Limj→∞ μ( An\cap Bj )=0 , for all n .

I want to show that above implies that : Limj→∞ μ(Bj)=0 .(**)

This is what I have:

We know that Ʃμ(An)=1 . So we must have some Ano in the
collection with μ(Ano)=a>0.

( I am assuming that the A_n's must all be of the form [a,b) , with A1=[0,a)

A2=[a,b) , etc. , plus a {1} thrown-in )

Now, I am trying to argue by contradiction , assuming that the limit above in (**) equals
some c+e ; e->0 , though I am not sure of how to show that the limit actually exists,
tho I am assuming for now that it does:

So, assuming limit in (**) exists and equals c+e ( e->0) , we have that there is an
integer N such that for all j>N :

c=c-e+e< μ(Bj)< c+e+e

In particular, μ(Bj)>c>0 .

Now, I can find an open set Oj, for each j , with

μ(Cj)=μ(Oj) .

I know the quantification here is tricky; I am then using that:


Oj= \/(cji ,dji)

And, since m(Bj)>c for all j>N , there is an index for the j's --

use j=1 without loss of generality -- such that m(c1,d1)>0

Now, this interval (c1,d1) must intersect some interval

An , and the intersection must be of one of the forms:

[x,y) , (x,y] , or (x,y) . In either case, the measure of the intersection is

y-x>0 , contradicting the assumption condition (**) that

Limj→∞ μ(Bj)=0.

I think I'm on the right track, but not 100%. Please critique.

Thanks.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Experts defend operational earthquake forecasting, counter critiques
EU urged to convert TV frequencies to mobile broadband
Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100
MathematicalPhysicist
#2
Feb27-13, 10:22 PM
P: 3,243
Can you translate your question to Latex or PDF, cause it's hard to read through ascii. I am not 20 anymore that I have the patience to read that way.
Bacle2
#3
Mar9-13, 09:13 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,170
Use the fact that the tail of the sum m(Ai) goes to zero, since the total sum is 1

Then use the fact that, by the limit condition, there is a K>0 with

Lim_n->0 (Bk /\An)=0 , for all k>K . Then , from the fact that m(Ai)->0 ,

Use Bk=(Bk /\ U Ai) , to conclude that m(Bk)->0.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Condition for local absolute continuity to imply uniform continuity Calculus 0
Cauchy sequences and continuity versus uniform continuity Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Real Analysis: Continuity and Uniform Continuity Calculus & Beyond Homework 5
Measure Theory - The completion of R^2 under a point mass measure Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
Lipschitz Continuity and measure theory Calculus 7