Lebesgue measurability proof - check my proof?

  • Thread starter jinsing
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary: No, that sounds like a good approach! You could also try defining R as the set of all possible intersections of elements from P and Q, but it might be harder to prove that it satisfies the necessary conditions for a refinement.
  • #1
jinsing
30
0

Homework Statement



If f is bounded on the measurable set S, and the measure of S is finite, and P,Q are partitions of S, then L(f,P) \leq U(f,Q)

Homework Equations



Lebesgue measurability/integrability, refinements

The Attempt at a Solution



Not sure if this is totally right, but:

Assume the hypotheses. Let P = {E1, E2,...,En} and Q={F1, F2,...,Fm}. Let R = {A_ji}, where [tex] E_j \cap F_i = \bigcup_{i=0}^{k_j} A_{ji}. [/tex] Then R is a refinement of P \cap Q. Since S has finite measure and is measurable on a bounded function f, then it follows that

[tex] m \mu(S) \leq L(f,P\cap Q) \leq L(f,R) \leq U(f,R) \leq U(f, P \cap Q) \leq M \mu(S). [/tex]

But if R is a refinement of P \cap Q, then clearly R is a refinement of P and R is a refinment of Q. Then it follows that L(f,P) \leq U(f,Q).

You might be able to tell, but I was sort of grasping for straws towards the end. Any useful hints?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Okay, so I've looked at this a bit more, and I have a more specific question.

I've figured out P \cap Q isn't necessarily a refinement of S. I think the basic idea of my proof is correct, but how would you go about defining a refinement so that for every A in R, there is an E in P and a F in Q such that A is a subset of E \cap F?
 
  • #3
How about this: R is a refinement of P and R is a refinement of Q. This means L(f,P) < L(f,R) < U(f,R) < U(f,Q). All that there is to the argument then is checking that L(f,P) < L(f,R) holds and that U(f,R) < U(f,Q) holds, and you can do this by creating your refinement one step at a time.

Am I missing something here?
 

1. What is Lebesgue measurability?

Lebesgue measurability is a concept in measure theory that determines whether a set in a given space has a well-defined measure. It is based on the Lebesgue measure, which is a way of assigning a numerical value to a set that represents its size or volume.

2. Why is Lebesgue measurability important?

Lebesgue measurability is important because it provides a rigorous and consistent way of measuring the size of sets in mathematical spaces. This is essential in many areas of mathematics, including analysis, geometry, and probability theory.

3. What is the proof for Lebesgue measurability?

The proof for Lebesgue measurability involves showing that a set can be approximated by a series of simple sets, such as intervals or rectangles. This is done using the concept of outer measure, which is a generalization of the notion of length, area, or volume.

4. How can I check my proof for Lebesgue measurability?

To check your proof for Lebesgue measurability, you can compare it to established proofs or ask for feedback from other mathematicians. Additionally, you can use software programs or online tools to verify your calculations and assumptions.

5. Are there any common mistakes in proving Lebesgue measurability?

Yes, there are some common mistakes that can occur when proving Lebesgue measurability. These include using incorrect definitions or assumptions, not considering all possible cases, and not providing enough detail in the proof. It is important to carefully check each step of the proof and to seek help if needed.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
924
Replies
4
Views
690
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
129
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
1
Views
87
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top