Is the Intersection of Sets with Measure 1 Also Measure 1?

  • MHB
  • Thread starter Chris L T521
  • Start date
In summary, in the context of set intersection, "measure 1" refers to the measure of a set containing a full unit of whatever is being measured. The intersection of two sets with measure 1 will always have a measure of 1, as it is equal to or less than the measure of the smaller set. The measure of a set can be affected by the intersection with another set, but the measure of the intersection will always be measurable and cannot exceed 1.
  • #1
Chris L T521
Gold Member
MHB
915
0
Here's this week's problem!

-----

Problem
: Suppose that $A_n\subset[0,1]$ such that $m(A_n)=1$ for $n=1,2,3,\cdots$. Show that $\displaystyle m(\bigcap\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n)=1.$

-----

Remember to read the http://www.mathhelpboards.com/showthread.php?772-Problem-of-the-Week-%28POTW%29-Procedure-and-Guidelines to find out how to http://www.mathhelpboards.com/forms.php?do=form&fid=2!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This week's problem was correctly answered by Ackbach. You can find his solution below.

[sp]Let $S=[0,1]$ be the universe of discourse, so we define set complements in terms of $S$: for any set $C\subseteq S$, $\overline{C}:= S \setminus C$. For each $j=1,2,3,\dots$ define $B_{j}=\overline{A_{j}}$. Since $m(S)=1$, it follows that $m(B_{j})=0$ for all $j=1,2,3,\dots$. Now
$$m \left( \overline{ \bigcap_{j=1}^{ \infty} A_{j}} \right)=m \left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty} \overline{A_{j}} \right) = m \left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty} B_{j} \right).$$
Now then, define the following new sequence of sets based on the $B_{j}$:
\begin{align*}
C_{1}&=B_{1} \\
C_{2}&= B_{2} \setminus B_{1} \\
C_{3}&= B_{3} \setminus (B_{1} \cup B_{2}) \\
C_{4}&= B_{4} \setminus (B_{1} \cup B_{2} \cup B_{3}) \\
\vdots \\
C_{n}&= B_{n} \setminus \left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{n-1}B_{j} \right).
\end{align*}

Then the elements of the sequence $\{C_{j}\}$ are mutually disjoint, and
$$\bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty}C_{j}= \bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty}B_{j},$$
and therefore
$$m \left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty}C_{j} \right)=m \left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty}B_{j} \right).$$
But $m(C_{j}) \le m(B_{j})$, since $C_{j} \subseteq B_{j}$. It follows that $m(C_{j})=0$. However, since the $\{C_{j}\}$ are mutually disjoint, it must be that
$$m \left( \bigcup_{j=1}^{ \infty}C_{j} \right) = \sum_{j=1}^{ \infty}m(C_{j})=0.$$
Since
$$m \left( \overline{ \bigcap_{j=1}^{ \infty} A_{j}} \right) =0,$$
it follows that
$$m \left( \bigcap_{j=1}^{ \infty} A_{j} \right)=1.$$
QED.[/sp]
 

Related to Is the Intersection of Sets with Measure 1 Also Measure 1?

1. What is the definition of "measure 1" in the context of set intersection?

In mathematics, "measure 1" refers to the measure of a set, which is a numerical representation of its size or volume. In the context of set intersection, the measure of a set with measure 1 means that it contains a full unit of whatever is being measured.

2. Can the intersection of two sets with measure 1 have a measure less than 1?

No, the intersection of two sets with measure 1 will always have a measure of 1. This is because the intersection of two sets is the overlapping region where both sets meet, so the measure of the intersection will be equal to or less than the measure of the smaller set.

3. How is the measure of a set affected by the intersection with another set?

The measure of a set can be affected in different ways depending on the properties of the two sets involved. In general, the measure of the intersection of two sets will be equal to or less than the measure of the smaller set. However, if the two sets are disjoint (have no common elements), the measure of the intersection will be 0.

4. Is the intersection of two sets with measure 1 always measurable?

Yes, the intersection of two sets with measure 1 will always be measurable. This is because the measure of a set is a well-defined concept in mathematics, and the intersection of two sets is also a well-defined operation. Therefore, the resulting intersection will also have a well-defined measure.

5. Can the intersection of two sets with measure 1 have a measure greater than 1?

No, the intersection of two sets with measure 1 cannot have a measure greater than 1. This is because the measure of a set cannot exceed its size or volume, and the intersection of two sets can only contain elements that are common to both sets, so the resulting measure will always be equal to or less than 1.

Similar threads

  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Math POTW for Graduate Students
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top