MHB Outer measure exclusion of zero set question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom555
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Set Zero
Tom555
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I've just started self-studying measure theory by reading Pugh's Mathematical Analysis. I'm trying to understand his argument for why the exclusion of a zero set does not change the outer measure: $m^*(E\setminus Z)=m^*(E)$:

(Pugh's arugment): Let $Z$ be a zero set, $E\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, and $m^*$ be the Lebesgue outer measure. Since $m^*(E)=m^*(E\cup Z)$, applying this to the set $E\setminus Z$ gives $m^*(E\setminus Z)=m^*((E\setminus Z)\cup(E\cap Z))=m^*(E).$ QED

My question is where does the $E\cap Z$ come from in the second equality above? If you're using $m^*(E)=m^*(E\cup Z)$ and making the substitution $E\to E\setminus Z$, why isn't it $m^*(E\setminus Z)=m^*((E\setminus Z)\cup Z)?$

Also, this is my first post on this site, so I apologize if something isn't formatted correctly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Adam1729 said:
I've just started self-studying measure theory by reading Pugh's Mathematical Analysis. I'm trying to understand his argument for why the exclusion of a zero set does not change the outer measure: $m^*(E\setminus Z)=m^*(E)$:

(Pugh's arugment): Let $Z$ be a zero set, $E\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, and $m^*$ be the Lebesgue outer measure. Since $m^*(E)=m^*(E\cup Z)$, applying this to the set $E\setminus Z$ gives $m^*(E\setminus Z)=m^*((E\setminus Z)\cup(E\cap Z))=m^*(E).$ QED

My question is where does the $E\cap Z$ come from in the second equality above? If you're using $m^*(E)=m^*(E\cup Z)$ and making the substitution $E\to E\setminus Z$, why isn't it $m^*(E\setminus Z)=m^*((E\setminus Z)\cup Z)?$

Also, this is my first post on this site, so I apologize if something isn't formatted correctly.
I think the following is being said: Since $Z$ is a zero set, so is $E\cap Z$. Thus $m^*(A)=m^*(A\cup (E\cap Z))$ for any $A\subseteq \mathbb R$. In particular we can take, $A=E\setminus Z$.

Does this answer your question?
 
Yes, thank you very much! :)
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K