A question about Caratheodory condition.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zzzhhh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Condition
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Theorem 16.3 from Bartle's "The Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure," which states that for a Lebesgue measurable set A with finite measure, a subset E is measurable if and only if the measure of A equals the sum of the outer measures of E and its complement in A. The participant questions the necessity of the condition E ⊆ A in the proof of the theorem's sufficient condition, suggesting that the measure m^*(E) can be derived without this assumption. However, clarification confirms that E ⊆ A is indeed required in both directions of the theorem.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue measure and outer measure (m^*)
  • Familiarity with set theory and measurable sets
  • Knowledge of theorems related to measure theory, specifically Theorem 16.3
  • Ability to interpret mathematical proofs and conditions
NEXT STEPS
  • Review Bartle's "The Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure" for deeper insights into measure theory
  • Study the implications of the Caratheodory condition in measure theory
  • Explore examples of Lebesgue measurable sets and their properties
  • Learn about the relationship between outer measure and Lebesgue measure in detail
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of analysis, and anyone studying measure theory who seeks clarity on the conditions of Lebesgue measurability and the Caratheodory condition.

zzzhhh
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
This question comes from Theorem 16.3 of Bartle's "The Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure", in page 163. The condition [tex]E\subseteq A[/tex] is indeed needed in the proof of necessary condition, but I did not find its usage anywhere in the proof of sufficient condition, for example, [tex]m^*(E)<+\infty[/tex] can be obtained from [tex]m(A-H)=m^*(E)[/tex], [tex]A-H\subseteq E[/tex] can be deduced from [tex]A-E\subseteq H[/tex]. Although I checked several times, I'm not sure if I missed something. So, Could someone help me make sure if the condition [tex]E\subseteq A[/tex] can be safely removed from the [tex]\Leftarrow[/tex] part of the theorem (then it may be the case that [tex]E\not\subseteq A[/tex] albeit the part of E that lies outside of A has zero measure)? Thanks!
This book is available online, but I cannot paste its link due to rules of this forum, you can find it at gigapedia.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps you could post a screenshot or scan of the relevant page? Or at least quote the theorem?
 
I looked in the book (hooray for Amazon's look inside feature). The theorem states
16.3 Theorem. Let [itex]A \subseteq \mathbf R^n[/itex] be Lebesgue measurable with [itex]m(A) < +\infty[/itex]. Then [itex]E \subseteq A[/itex] is Lebesgue measurable if and only if [itex]m(A) = m^*(E) + m^*(A - E)[/itex].​
Here [itex]m^*[/itex] is the outer measure.

The problem is that you are misinterpreting the statement of the theorem. What it means is this:
Let [itex]A \subseteq \mathbf R^n[/itex] be Lebesgue measurable with [itex]m(A) < +\infty[/itex], and let [itex]E \subseteq A[/itex]. Then [itex]E[/itex] is Lebesgue measurable if and only if [itex]m(A) = m^*(E) + m^*(A - E)[/itex].​
So [itex]E \subseteq A[/itex] is assumed in both directions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K