Outer Lebesgue Measure limit's proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter SqueeSpleen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Proof
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving the limit of the outer Lebesgue measure for an increasing sequence of subsets \( \{ E_{k} \}_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \) in \( \mathbb{R}^{p} \). It establishes that \( | \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} |_{e} \geq \lim_{k \to \infty} |E_{k}|_{e} \) but seeks to prove the reverse inequality. The participants suggest splitting the proof into cases based on whether the limit is finite or infinite and emphasize the use of epsilon-delta arguments to rigorously establish the desired equality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of outer Lebesgue measure
  • Familiarity with sequences and limits in real analysis
  • Knowledge of subadditivity properties of measures
  • Proficiency in epsilon-delta proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of outer Lebesgue measure in detail
  • Learn about the monotonicity of measures and its implications
  • Explore epsilon-delta definitions and their applications in measure theory
  • Investigate the Vitali covering theorem and its relevance to outer measure
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in real analysis and measure theory, as well as students seeking to understand the intricacies of Lebesgue measure and its properties.

SqueeSpleen
Messages
138
Reaction score
5
If \{ E_{k} \}_{k \in \mathbb{N}} is an increasing sequence of subsets of R^{p}, then:
| \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} |_{e} = \lim_{k \to \infty} |E_{k}|_{e}
I proved:
| \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} |_{e} \geq \lim_{k \to \infty} |E_{k}|_{e}
But I don't know how to prove the other inequality.

E_{n} = \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} \subseteq \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} \forall n \in \mathbb{N}
So, for monotony of the outer Lebesgue measure we have:
\newline
| E_{n} |_{e} = | \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} |_{e} \leq \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} \forall n \in \mathbb{N}
\newline
So the limit has also to be equal or lesser.
My problem is that I have not idea how to link the limit of the sets with the other limit in the other way, I could decompose:
\displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} = \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} \cup \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=n+1}^{\infty} E_{k} = \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} \cup \displaystyle (\bigcup_{k=n+1}^{\infty} E_{k} - \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k}) but the outer measure is subaditive, so the decomposition of the measure I could do to try to get something arbitrary small would be greater than my previous set and I have no guarantee it's close than the measure of the other set (vitali's could basically double the external measure I'm trying to delimite).
If they're measurables it's very easy, but in general I don't know how to prove it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
SqueeSpleen said:
If \{ E_{k} \}_{k \in \mathbb{N}} is an increasing sequence of subsets of R^{p}, then:



| \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} |_{e} = \lim_{k \to \infty} |E_{k}|_{e}
I proved:
| \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} |_{e} \geq \lim_{k \to \infty} |E_{k}|_{e}
But I don't know how to prove the other inequality.

E_{n} = \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} \subseteq \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} \forall n \in \mathbb{N}
So, for monotony of the outer Lebesgue measure we have:
\newline
| E_{n} |_{e} = | \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} |_{e} \leq \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} \forall n \in \mathbb{N}
\newline
So the limit has also to be equal or lesser.
My problem is that I have not idea how to link the limit of the sets with the other limit in the other way, I could decompose:
\displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} = \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} \cup \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=n+1}^{\infty} E_{k} = \displaystyle \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k} \cup \displaystyle (\bigcup_{k=n+1}^{\infty} E_{k} - \bigcup_{k=1}^{n} E_{k}) but the outer measure is subaditive, so the decomposition of the measure I could do to try to get something arbitrary small would be greater than my previous set and I have no guarantee it's close than the measure of the other set (vitali's could basically double the external measure I'm trying to delimite).
If they're measurables it's very easy, but in general I don't know how to prove it.

Well the first thing I would do is split the problem into two cases; one where ##|\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_{k} |_{e}## is finite, and one where it is not.

For the harder (finite) case, I think you might just need to roll up your sleeves, dust off the old ##\epsilon##s and ##\delta##s (or I guess in this case ##\epsilon##s and ##n##s), and play around in the muck for a bit. Maybe draw a picture/cartoon of a "nice-looking" finite case, come up with an heuristic argument you think works there, and then see if you can give that argument some rigor that makes it work in the general case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K