Outer measure .... Axler, Result 2.14 .... Another Question ....

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a proof related to Result 2.14 from Sheldon Axler's book on measure theory, specifically focusing on the implications of certain properties of intervals in the context of outer measure. Participants are seeking clarification and rigorous demonstration of a specific implication involving open intervals and their lengths.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Peter requests a rigorous demonstration that if an interval $[a, b]$ is contained in an open interval $I_1$, then the length of $I_1$ is at least $b - a$.
  • Peter suggests using the fact that if $A \subset B$, then the measure of $A$ is less than or equal to the measure of $B$ to support his argument.
  • Another participant points out that since $I_1$ is an open interval containing $[a, b]$, its endpoints must satisfy certain inequalities, which could help in proving the desired implication.
  • Peter proposes a specific approach by defining $I_1 = (c, d)$ and asserts that if $c \leq a < b \leq d$, then the length of $I_1$ is $d - c$, which he believes should be greater than or equal to $b - a$.
  • A later reply confirms Peter's reasoning as correct and well-presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the approach to proving the implication, with some confirming the correctness of Peter's reasoning. However, the discussion does not resolve all uncertainties regarding the rigor of the proof itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference definitions from Axler's text, which may be necessary for a complete understanding of the proof's context. There are also assumptions about the properties of intervals that remain unexamined.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Sheldon Axler's book: Measure, Integration & Real Analysis ... and I am focused on Chapter 2: Measures ...

I need further help with the proof of Result 2.14 ...

Result 2.14 and its proof read as follows
Axler - Result  2.14- outer measure of a closed interval .png
In the above proof by Axler we read the following:

" ... ... To get started with the induction, note that 2.15 clearly implies 2.16 if $$n = 1$$ ... "Can someone please demonstrate rigorously that 2.15 clearly implies 2.16 if $$n = 1$$ ...

... in other words, demonstrate rigorously that $$[a, b] \subset I_1 \Longrightarrow l(I_1) \geq b - a$$ ...
My thoughts ... we should be able to use $$(a, b) \subset [a, b]$$ and the fact that if $$A \subset B$$ then $$\mid A \mid \leq \mid B \mid$$ ... ... ... ... but we may have to prove rigorously that $$\mid (a, b) \mid = b - a$$ but how do we express this proof ...
Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter=============================================================================================================

Readers of the above post may be assisted by access to Axler's definition of the length of an open interval and his definition of outer measure ... so I am providing access to the relevant text ... as follows:
Axler - Defn 2.1 & 2.2 .png

Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Since $I_{1}$ is an open interval containing $[a,b]$, its right endpoint, say $c$, must be larger than $b$ (with infinity being allowed). Similarly, its left endpoint, say $d$, must be less than $a$ (with negative infinity being allowed). Can you proceed from here?
 
GJA said:
Hi Peter,

Since $I_{1}$ is an open interval containing $[a,b]$, its right endpoint, say $c$, must be larger than $b$ (with infinity being allowed). Similarly, its left endpoint, say $d$, must be less than $a$ (with negative infinity being allowed). Can you proceed from here?
Thanks for the help GJA ... appreciate it ... I believe I can now proceed ...

Now ... we wish to show that $$[a, b] \subset I_1 \Longrightarrow l(I_1) \geq b - a$$ ...

... so ... proceed as follows ...

Let $$I_1 = (c, d)$$ where $$c \leq a \lt b \leq d$$ ...

Then $$l(I_1) = d - c \geq b - a$$ ...

Is that correct?

Peter
 
Looks good. Nicely done!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K