If E_1, E_2, ... is a sequence (of subsets of R^n) that decreases to E(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

(i.e. E_m+1 is a subset of E_m for all m, and E = intersection of all the E_m's)

and some E_k has finite (lebesgue) measure, i.e. lambda(E_k) is finite

it is a known result that the measure of E is equal to the limit of the measure of E_m.

But now if we are given some bounded set E

and we define E_m = { x : d(x,E) < 1/m }

where d(x,E) = minimum distance from x to any point in set E,

then howcome we have lambda(E) = lim_m->oo lambda( E_m ) when E is closed

but not when E is open?

Doesn't the fact that E is bounded imply some E_k has finite measure, and hence the above result applies, regardless whether E is open or closed or neither?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Measure of limit of decreasing sequence

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Measure limit decreasing | Date |
---|---|

Get equation that describes set of measured values | Dec 19, 2016 |

I Lebesgue measure and Fourier theory | May 6, 2016 |

Stationary point for convex difference measure | Nov 14, 2015 |

Measure zero | Jun 27, 2013 |

The limit of an almost uniformly Cauchy sequence of measurable functions | Feb 15, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**