1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lebesgue measurability proof - check my proof?

  1. Dec 1, 2011 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    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)

    2. Relevant equations

    Lebesgue measurability/integrability, refinements

    3. 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!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2011 #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?
     
  4. Dec 1, 2011 #3

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Lebesgue measurability proof - check my proof?
  1. Measurable set proof (Replies: 2)

Loading...