Measure theory and the symmetric difference

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in measure theory concerning the symmetric difference of sets within a finite positive measure space. Participants are attempting to prove a specific inequality involving the measure of symmetric differences, exploring various approaches and definitions related to set operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in proving that for sets A, B, and C, the inequality d(A,B) ≤ d(A,C) + d(C,B) holds, where d(A,B) = μ(A Δ B).
  • Another participant suggests proving the inclusion A Δ B ⊆ A Δ C ∪ C Δ B as a potential approach to the problem.
  • A participant acknowledges the suggestion and attempts to prove the inclusion but struggles with the complexity of the expression for A Δ C ∪ C Δ B.
  • One contributor emphasizes returning to basic definitions to understand the inclusion, providing a case analysis based on whether elements belong to set C.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over the terminology used and attempts to clarify the implications of the symmetric difference and its relationship to set operations.
  • A later reply summarizes that a proof is nearly complete, referencing earlier contributions and confirming the inclusion relationships necessary for the proof.
  • One participant expresses frustration over formatting issues in their previous post but acknowledges the contributions of others in moving towards a proof.
  • Another participant admits to a misunderstanding regarding the concept of symmetric difference, indicating a moment of realization after further discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants are engaged in a collaborative exploration of the problem, with some agreeing on the approach of proving set inclusions while others express uncertainty or confusion about specific definitions and expressions. No consensus has been reached on the proof itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention challenges with set algebra and the complexity of expressions, indicating that the discussion may be limited by varying levels of familiarity with the concepts involved.

nyq_guru
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm currently trying to teach myself some measure theory and I'm stuck on trying to show the following:

Let [tex](X,M,\mu)[/tex] be a finite positive measure space such that [tex]\mu({x})>0[/tex] [tex]\forall x \in X[/tex] . Set [tex]d(A,B) = \mu(A \Delta B)[/tex], [tex]A,B \in X[/tex]. Prove that [tex]d(A,B) \leq d(A,C) + d(C,B)[/tex] .

Could someone perhaps help me on the way? I've tried various approaches (mostly "brute force" with different re-writings of both sides of the inequality) but every time there is some term left that doesn't quite fit. Feels like it's actually quite easy and that I'm just missing the point.

Thanks in advance, oh and btw if this does not come out in the correct tex format, how do I achieve that? My first time here
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried proving that [itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]?
 
morphism said:
Have you tried proving that [itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]?

Actually no, but I think I see where you're getting at. If I can prove this, it would imply that [tex]\mu(A \Delta B) \leq \mu((A \Delta C) \cup (C \Delta B))[/tex].
Now I tried to prove the relation you mentioned, but I can't seem to do it. The expression for the [tex]A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex] is to nasty for me this early in the morning, especially since I'm still not comfortable enough with set algebra. However, with Venn diagrams it is easy to see.
Now, if this relation is proved, I simply use that (since it is a finite positive space) [tex]\mu((A \Delta C) \cup (C \Delta B)) = \mu(A \Delta C) + \mu(C \Delta B) - \mu((A \Delta C) \cap (C \Delta B))[/tex]. Since the last term is >0, it is clear that the inequality holds, right?
 
Haven't had your coffee yet? I'm not sure what you mean by "set algebra" but I would just go back to the basic definitions: to prove
[itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]

If x is in [itex]A \Delta B[/itex] then x is in A but not in B. Now look at two cases:

case 1: x is in C. Then x is in [itex]C \Delta B[/itex]

case 2: x is NOT in C. Then x is in [itex]A \Delta C[/itex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
Haven't had your coffee yet? I'm not sure what you mean by "set algebra" but I would just go back to the basic definitions: to prove
[itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]

If x is in [itex]A \Delta B[/itex] then x is in A but not in B. Now look at two cases:

case 1: x is in C. Then x is in [itex]C \Delta B[/itex]

case 2: x is NOT in C. Then x is in [itex]A \Delta C[/itex]

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't [tex]x \in A \Delta B[/tex] imply that x is in either A or B, but [tex]x \notin A \cap B[/tex]?
From drawing a Venn diagram for [tex]A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex] I believe that this relation can be written [tex](A \cup B \cup C)[/tex] \ [tex](A \cap B \cap C)[/tex]. If this is correct, obviously any [tex]x \in A \Delta B[/tex] will also be in [tex]A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex]. However, if this is the case I would like to show that [tex]A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B = (A \cup B \cup C)[/tex] \ [tex](A \cap B \cap C)[/tex], not just draw a diagram.
Using the basic definitions would yield that [tex]x \in A \Delta B[/tex] if [tex]x \in A[/tex] or [tex]x \in B[/tex] but [tex]x \notin A \cap B[/tex]. Similarly, [tex]x \in A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex] implies that (if the equality earlier is true) that [tex]x \in A[/tex], [tex]x \in B[/tex] or [tex]x \in C[/tex] but [tex]x \notin A \cap B \cap C[/tex], which I believe shows that [tex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex]
 
HallsofIvy's proof is almost complete. He showed that [itex]A \backslash B \subset C \Delta B \cup A \Delta C[/itex]. Symmetrically, we have that [itex]B \backslash A \subset C \Delta A \cup B \Delta C[/itex], and the result now follows.
 
Something went seriously wrong with my last post, everything just became a blur. The expressions aren't even in the correct places. Oh well, I'll fix it when I get home. morphism, thanks for pointing out that way to complete the proof. I still can't let go of the thought of rewriting the expression for [tex]A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex] though :-).
 
You are right. I completely missed that: I was thinking "difference" rather than "symmetric difference". And I had had my coffee!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K