Outer Measure is Countably Subadditive

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


If ##\{E_k\}_{k=1}^\infty## is any countable collection of sets, disjoint or not, then ##m^* \left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_k \right) \le \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} m^*(E_k)##.

Homework Equations



##m^*(A) = \inf \{ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \ell (I_k) ~|~ A \subseteq \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} I_k \}##

Note: each ##I_k## is bounded, open interval.

The Attempt at a Solution



I am working through the proof of the above theorem in Royden and Fitzpatrick's Real Analysis and I am having trouble justifying the following claim they use in their proof: Let ##\epsilon > 0##. For each natural number ##k##, there is a countable collection ##\{I_{k,i}\}_{i=1}^\infty## of open, bounded intervals for which

$$E_k \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty I_{k,i}$$

and

$$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \ell (I_{k,i}) < m^*(E_k) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^k}$$

I think they are just appealing to the following fact: Let ##A \subseteq \Bbb{R}## be nonempty; then ##i = \inf(A)## if and only if ##\forall \delta > 0##, there exists an ##a \in A## such that ##a < i + \delta##. Now since ##m^*(E_k)## is the infimum of certain sums, given ##\frac{\epsilon}{2^k}##, there must exist ##\{I_{k,i}\}_{i=1}^\infty## satisfying the above two properties. Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. Let ##S## be the collection of all covers of ##E_k## by countable collections of bounded open intervals. For a cover ##C\in S##, let ##\phi(C)=\sum_{I\in C}\ell(I)##. Then the ##A## to which you refer is
$$A=\left\{\phi(C)\ :\ C\in S\right\}$$
and ##m^*(E_k)=\inf A##. So for any ##\epsilon>0## there must exist ##C\in S## such that ##\phi(C)<m^*(E_k)+\frac{\epsilon}{2^k}##, otherwise ##\inf A\geq m^*(E_k)+\frac{\epsilon}{2^k}> m^*(E_k)=\inf A##, which is a contradiction.
 
  • Like
Likes Bashyboy
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top