Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

My proof of very basic measure theory theorem

  1. Aug 26, 2011 #1
    Hi. I have a proof of a very basic measure theory theorem related to the definition of a measure, and would like to ask posters if the proof is wrong.

    Theorem: If [itex]E[/itex] is measurable, then [itex]\overline{E}[/itex] is measurable and conversely.

    My Proof:
    Let's try the converse version first.

    [itex]m(E)=m(E \cap \overline{E})+m(E \cap E)[/itex]
    [itex]=m(E \cap \overline{E})+m(E)[/itex]
    So [itex]m(E \cap \overline{E})=0[/itex]. By this we've shown that [itex]\overline{E}[/itex] is measurable. Converse is true by similar method.

    [itex]m(\overline{E})=m(\overline{E} \cap \overline{E})+m(\overline{E} \cap E)[/itex]
    [itex]=m(\overline{E})+m(E \cap \overline{E})[/itex]
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2011 #2
    That is in fact, completely wrong. In order to show that [itex]\overline{E}[/itex] is measurable, you have to show that for any set A, [itex]m(A) = m(A \cap \overline{E}) + m(A \cap \overline{\overline{E}})[/itex]. You seem to be trying to do this only in the case where A=E, which is not sufficient.
  4. Aug 26, 2011 #3
    And the converse is not true. The thing is that all closed sets are measurable. So [itex]\overline{E}[/itex] is always measurable. But E doesn't need to be.
  5. Aug 26, 2011 #4
    I took the meaning of the bar to be compliment, rather than closure. gunitinug, can you confirm that that's what the notation means?
  6. Aug 26, 2011 #5
    Aah, yes. That would make sense...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook