Measuring Disjoint Sets with Lebesgue Outer Measure

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving properties of Lebesgue outer measure, specifically for disjoint sets X and Y in R. It establishes that if the distance d(X, Y) is greater than 0, then m*(X ∪ Y) = m*(X) + m*(Y). Additionally, it proves that for disjoint and compact sets, the same additive property holds without relying on measurability. The key tools discussed include the definition of Lebesgue outer measure and the concept of compactness in relation to coverings by open intervals.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue outer measure (m*)
  • Knowledge of compact sets in real analysis
  • Familiarity with the concept of distance between sets (d(X, Y))
  • Basic principles of covering sets with open intervals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lebesgue outer measure in detail
  • Explore the concept of compactness and its implications in real analysis
  • Learn about coverings of sets and their applications in measure theory
  • Investigate the relationship between measurability and outer measure
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in measure theory, particularly those studying properties of Lebesgue outer measure and compact sets.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let X, Y be subsets of R and defined d(X, Y) = inf {|x - y| : x in X and y in Y}.

(i) Prove that if d(X, Y) > 0, then m*(X cup Y) = m*(X) + m*(Y)

(ii) Prove, without using any facts about measurability, that if X, Y are disjoint and compact, then m*(X cup Y) = m*(X) + m*(Y).


Homework Equations


m* is Lebesgue outer measure.


The Attempt at a Solution


Concerning (i), d(X, Y) > 0 implies that X and Y are disjoint right? But being disjoint is not enough to conclude that m*(X cup Y) = m*(X) + m*(Y).

Concerning (ii), since X and Y are disjoint, d(X, Y) > 0 and so part (i) applies and we're done. Since we're not supposed to use measurability, I imagine that (i) uses measurability so this isn't allowed. I guess I'm forced to work with the definition of outer measure. By monotonicity of m*, m*(X cup Y) ≤ m*(X) + m*(Y) so I only need to prove the reverse inequality. Let {U_n} and {V_n} be coverings of X and Y by open intervals. Then {W_n} = {U_n} cup {V_n} is an covering of X cup Y. By compactness, we can shrink each of {U_n}, {V_n} and {W_n} so that they are finite. Now {W_n} subseteq {U_n} cup {V_n}, so that sum L(W_n) ≤ sum L(U_n) + sum L(V_n), where L() returns the length of the interval. This is all I can think of. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
for (i) let d = d(X,Y), and O = \bigcup_{x\in X}(x - d,x+d) so O\bigcap Y = empty set, and X \subseteq O then since O is measurable we get:

m(X\cup Y) = m((X\cup Y)\cap O) + m((X\cup Y)\cap O^{c}) = m(X) + m(Y).
 
Last edited:
I thought of that exact same argument. Thanks. Any ideas on (ii)?
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K