Convergence of Countable Sets and the Counting Measure

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of countable sets and the implications of the counting measure on an infinite set. Participants explore whether the sequence of sets \( A_n \) approaches the empty set and the behavior of their measures as \( n \) approaches infinity.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the nature of the sets \( A_n \) and \( B_n \), questioning whether \( A_n \) converges to the empty set. They discuss the implications of limits involving infinity and the counting measure, raising concerns about the validity of certain assumptions and calculations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning each other's reasoning. Some have offered clarifications regarding the measure of the limit set and the conditions under which the measures can be evaluated. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between the sets and their measures.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the requirement that at least one of the sets in the sequence must have finite measure for certain measure properties to hold. The original problem context is derived from a textbook, which adds a layer of complexity to the discussion.

divergentgrad
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose [itex]\Omega[/itex] is an infinite set. If [itex]Q = \{x_1,x_2,...\} \subset \Omega[/itex] is infinite and countable, and if [itex]B_n := \{x_1,x_2,...,x_n\}, A_n := Q - B_n[/itex], ...

does [itex]A_n \downarrow \emptyset[/itex]? If [itex]\mu[/itex] is the counting measure on [itex]\Omega[/itex], is [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu (A_n) = 0[/itex]?

The Attempt at a Solution



My first thought is that [tex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \lim_{m \to \infty} (m - n) = \infty[/tex] would neatly parallel the above situation, and suggest that [itex]A_n[/itex] does not approach [itex]\emptyset[/itex]. Is that correct?

Now I'm actually doubting myself. Is it true that [tex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \mbox{ } \lim_{m \to \infty} (m - n) = \infty \neq -\infty = \lim_{m \to \infty}\mbox{ } \lim_{n \to \infty} (m - n)[/tex]? Or are these just indeterminate?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Since the [itex]A_n\text{'s}[/itex] are a decreasing sequence, i.e. [itex]A_n \supseteq A_{n+1}[/itex], then [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n[/itex]. For any n, [itex]x_n \in B_n[/itex], so would that make
[tex] \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty (Q - B_n) = Q - \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty B_n[/tex]
empty or nonempty?

I'm not sure your idea with the limits will work. Intuitively it makes sense, but I think in the end you're left with the indeterminate [itex]\infty - \infty[/itex].
 
spamiam said:
Since the [itex]A_n\text{'s}[/itex] are a decreasing sequence, i.e. [itex]A_n \supseteq A_{n+1}[/itex], then [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n[/itex]. For any n, [itex]x_n \in B_n[/itex], so would that make
[tex] \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty (Q - B_n) = Q - \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty B_n[/tex]
empty or nonempty?

I'm not sure your idea with the limits will work. Intuitively it makes sense, but I think in the end you're left with the indeterminate [itex]\infty - \infty[/itex].

Thanks. I had thought up the An, Bn, believing it would work for the problem, until I puzzled over the limits.

Now since [itex]B_n \subset Q[/itex], we have
[tex]\mu(A_n) = \mu(Q-B_n) = \mu(Q) - \mu(B_n) = \infty - n.[/tex]

So then [tex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) = \mu(Q) - \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(B_n) = \infty - \infty.[/tex]

... er...?
 
divergentgrad said:
Now since [itex]B_n \subset Q[/itex], we have
[tex]\mu(A_n) = \mu(Q-B_n) = \mu(Q) - \mu(B_n) = \infty - n.[/tex]

So then [tex]\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) = \mu(Q) - \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(B_n) = \infty - \infty.[/tex]

... er...?

Don't worry about the measure yet. As I said before, [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n[/itex]. You can figure out quite easily if this set is empty or not just using basic set theory.

Given [itex]a \in Q[/itex], [itex]a = x_n[/itex] for some n. Can you find a set [itex]A_i[/itex] in the sequence such that [itex]x_n \notin A_i[/itex]?
 
spamiam said:
Don't worry about the measure yet. As I said before, [itex]\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n[/itex]. You can figure out quite easily if this set is empty or not just using basic set theory.

Given [itex]a \in Q[/itex], [itex]a = x_n[/itex] for some n. Can you find a set [itex]A_i[/itex] in the sequence such that [itex]x_n \notin A_i[/itex]?

No, no, I was addressing the second part of my question. I realize that the measure of the limit set is empty, because the limit set is the empty set. However, is the limit of the measure 0?

(I realized from your post that I was just not thinking about it clearly. It is obvious that [itex]\bigcap^{\infty}_{n=1} A_n = \emptyset[/itex].)
 
Last edited:
The original question, which appears in Robert Ash's Real Analysis and Probability, chapter 1.2:

Let [itex]\mu[/itex] be counting measure on [itex]\Omega[/itex], where [itex]\Omega[/itex] is an infinite set. Show that there is a sequence of sets [itex]A_n \downarrow \emptyset[/itex] with [itex]\lim_{n\to\infty} \mu(A_n) \neq 0[/itex].
 
divergentgrad said:
No, no, I was addressing the second part of my question. I realize that the measure of the limit set is empty, because the limit set is the empty set. However, is the limit of the measure 0?

Oh, okay. This question actually tripped me up a little. Take a look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measur..._of_infinite_intersections_of_measurable_sets). The key thing to note is the requirement that 1 of the sets in the sequence have finite measure. In your example, for every n [itex]Q - B_n[/itex] still contains an infinite number of elements, so for any n [itex]\mu(Q - B_n) = \infty[/itex]. Now that I look back at your previous post
[tex]\mu(A_n) = \mu(Q-B_n) = \mu(Q) - \mu(B_n) = \infty - n.[/tex]

I don't think this is correct, since IIRC you have to be dealing with sets of finite measure to go from the measure of the complement to the difference of the measures. The measure of [itex]Q-B_n[/itex] is infinity, since it certainly has infinitely many elements.
 
spamiam said:
Oh, okay. This question actually tripped me up a little. Take a look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measur..._of_infinite_intersections_of_measurable_sets). The key thing to note is the requirement that 1 of the sets in the sequence have finite measure. In your example, for every n [itex]Q - B_n[/itex] still contains an infinite number of elements, so for any n [itex]\mu(Q - B_n) = \infty[/itex]. Now that I look back at your previous post


I don't think this is correct, since IIRC you have to be dealing with sets of finite measure to go from the measure of the complement to the difference of the measures. The measure of [itex]Q-B_n[/itex] is infinity, since it certainly has infinitely many elements.

Back to the drawing board. Thanks for your help seeing the root of my misthought.
 
No, no, I think it works! What you've shown is

[tex] \mu\left(\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n\right) = \mu(\emptyset) = 0[/tex]

but
[tex] \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(Q - Bn) = \infty[/tex]

since you've shown [itex]\mu(Q - Bn) = \infty[/itex] for every n.
 
  • #10
spamiam said:
No, no, I think it works! What you've shown is

[tex] \mu\left(\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n\right) = \mu(\emptyset) = 0[/tex]

but
[tex] \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(Q - Bn) = \infty[/tex]

since you've shown [itex]\mu(Q - Bn) = \infty[/itex] for every n.

That looks so clear, but I think that what you brought up before is still an issue--unless one of the [itex]A_n[/itex] is finite, I don't have a sequence of sets with limit [itex]\emptyset[/itex].

EDIT: On the other hand it's still obvious that [itex]\bigcap^{\infty}_{n=1} A_n = Q - \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1}B_n = Q - Q = \emptyset[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #11
divergentgrad said:
That looks so clear, but I think that what you brought up before is still an issue--unless one of the [itex]A_n[/itex] is finite, I don't have a sequence of sets with limit [itex]\emptyset[/itex].
No, one of the [itex]A_n[/itex] would have to have finite measure in order that
[tex] \mu\left(\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n\right) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n)[/tex]
but you actually don't want that to be true for this problem.
EDIT: On the other hand it's still obvious that [itex]\bigcap^{\infty}_{n=1} A_n = Q - \bigcup^{\infty}_{n=1}B_n = Q - Q = \emptyset[/itex].

Exactly, the intersection is definitely empty.
 
  • #12
spamiam said:
No, one of the [itex]A_n[/itex] would have to have finite measure in order that
[tex] \mu\left(\lim_{n \to \infty} A_n\right) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n)[/tex]
but you actually don't want that to be true for this problem.


Exactly, the intersection is definitely empty.

Ah, ah--I had those requirements mixed up. So it worked. Thanks for your help getting through the mire.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K