Lebesgue Outer Measure .... Carothers, Proposition 16.1 ....

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Proposition 16.1 from N. L. Carothers' "Real Analysis," specifically focusing on the proof related to Lebesgue outer measure. Participants are examining the implications of modifying the intervals involved in the proof, particularly how to handle the open and closed nature of the intervals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks clarification on how to appropriately expand the intervals ##J_k## and shrink the intervals ##I_n## as suggested in the proof.
  • Some participants propose replacing ##J_k## with its closure and ##I_n## with its interior, arguing that these modifications do not affect the lengths of the intervals and maintain the validity of the inequalities.
  • Peter questions this approach, suggesting that replacing ##J_k## with its closure would contradict the requirement for ##J_k## to be open.
  • Another participant notes that while the closure makes the set closed, a small adjustment can be made to ensure the intervals remain open while still satisfying the necessary conditions for the proof.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of strict inequalities and how small adjustments can be made to maintain the validity of the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate modifications to the intervals ##J_k## and ##I_n##, indicating that there is no consensus on the best approach to take in this context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the nuances of interval manipulation in the context of Lebesgue measure, with participants acknowledging the importance of maintaining the properties of the intervals while addressing the requirements of the proof.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
TL;DR
I need help with an aspect of the proof of Carothers' Proposition 16.1 ...
I am reading N. L. Carothers' book: "Real Analysis". ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 16: Lebesgue Measure ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 16.1 ...

Proposition 16.1 and its proof read as follows:
Carothers - Proposition 16.1 ... .png


In the above text from Carothers we read the following:

" ... ... But now, by expanding each ##J_k## slightly and shrinking each ##I_n## slightly, we may suppose that the ##J_k## are open and the ##I_n## are closed. ... "Can someone please explain how Carothers is expecting the ##J_k## to be expanded and the ##I_n## to be shrunk ... and further, why the proof is still valid after the ##J_k## and ##I_n## have been altered in this way ... ...
Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Replace ##J_k## by its closure and ##I_n## by its interior. These operations add/remove only begin or end points of the intervals so the lengths of the intervals are unaffected and the inequality with the two series keep valid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Math_QED said:
Replace ##J_k## by its closure and ##I_n## by its interior. These operations add/remove only begin or end points of the intervals so the lengths of the intervals are unaffected and the inequality with the two series keep valid.

Thanks for the help ...

I get the idea but shouldn't we replace ##J_k## by its interior and ##I_n## by its closure ...

Peter
 
You write:

" ... Interior makes the set smaller, the closure of the set makes the set larger. ... "

Yes ... but the problem I have is that we are told we may suppose that the ##J_k## are open and the ##I_n## are closed!

If we replace ##J_k## by its closure the ##J_k## will be closed not open ...

Peter
 
Math Amateur said:
You write:

" ... Interior makes the set smaller, the closure of the set makes the set larger. ... "

Yes ... but the problem I have is that we are told we may suppose that the ##J_k## are open and the ##I_n## are closed!

If we replace ##J_k## by its closure the ##J_k## will be closed not open ...

Peter
You can quantify it if you like. As mentioned by @Math_QED we need only a point or two from not closed to closed, which doesn't change the length. And we need an arbitrary small, but positive distance to change from closed to open.

If there is a strict inequality, then it has a positive distance ##d>0## between the two. So the inequality still holds if we e.g. add ##d/2## to the smaller sum. Now we can write ##d/2=\sum_{n=1}^\infty d\left(\dfrac{1}{3}\right)^n##. This means we have ##(1/2)d/3^k## available to add on each side of every interval ##J_k## to make it open and still have a total length strictly smaller than ##d##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur and member 587159
Thanks for your assistance fresh_42 ...

Your post was extremely helpful...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K