MHB Measure Union of n Measurable Sets: Formula & Examples

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Union
Click For Summary
In a metric space, the measure of the union of n measurable sets can be expressed using the inclusion-exclusion principle. For disjoint sets, the measure is simply the sum of individual measures. When sets are not disjoint, the formula adjusts to account for overlaps, leading to an inequality. The comprehensive formula for n measurable sets includes alternating sums of measures of intersections. This discussion clarifies the need for an exact formula rather than an inequality when determining the measure of unions.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

At any metric space, find a formula that gives the measure of the union of $n$ measurable sets, not necessary disjoint.

If the sets are disjoint the measure of the union is $$\mu \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} A_n \right)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\mu(A_n)$$ right??

And when the sets are not disjoint the $=$ gets $\leq$.

Is this the formula that I am asked to find?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
At any metric space, find a formula that gives the measure of the union of $n$ measurable sets, not necessary disjoint.
One option is
\[
\mu\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^n\mu\left(A_i\setminus\bigcup_{k=1}^{i-1}A_k\right).
\]
 
Since you are asked to find a formula, you must give an equation, not an inequality. I'll write down the formula, and leave it to you to prove it.

Let $A_1,\ldots, A_n$ be $n$ measurable sets. Then

$$ \mu(\bigcup_{j = 1}^n A_j) = \sum_{j = 1}^k \mu(A_j) -\sum_{1\le j_1 < j_2 \le n} \mu(A_{j_1} \cap A_{j_2}) +\sum_{1 \le j_1 < j_2 < j_3 \le n}\mu(A_{j_1} \cap A_{j_2} \cap A_{j_3}) - \cdots + (-1)^{n-1} \mu(\bigcap_{j = 1}^n A_j)$$
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
One option is
\[
\mu\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i\right)=\sum_{i=1}^n\mu\left(A_i\setminus\bigcup_{k=1}^{i-1}A_k\right).
\]

Euge said:
Since you are asked to find a formula, you must give an equation, not an inequality. I'll write down the formula, and leave it to you to prove it.

Let $A_1,\ldots, A_n$ be $n$ measurable sets. Then

$$ \mu(\bigcup_{j = 1}^n A_j) = \sum_{j = 1}^k \mu(A_j) -\sum_{1\le j_1 < j_2 \le n} \mu(A_{j_1} \cap A_{j_2}) +\sum_{1 \le j_1 < j_2 < j_3 \le n}\mu(A_{j_1} \cap A_{j_2} \cap A_{j_3}) - \cdots + (-1)^{n-1} \mu(\bigcap_{j = 1}^n A_j)$$

I understand! Thank you both very much! (Sun)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K