Outer Measure is Countably Subadditive

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bashyboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the theorem regarding the countably subadditive property of outer measure, specifically stated as: if ##\{E_k\}_{k=1}^\infty## is any countable collection of sets, then ##m^* \left(\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} E_k \right) \le \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} m^*(E_k)##. The proof utilizes the definition of outer measure ##m^*(A) = \inf \{ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \ell (I_k) ~|~ A \subseteq \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty} I_k \}##, where each ##I_k## is a bounded open interval. The justification for the existence of a countable collection of intervals covering each set ##E_k## is confirmed through the properties of infimum and the contradiction method.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of outer measure and its properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of infimum in real analysis
  • Knowledge of bounded open intervals in the context of measure theory
  • Proficiency in the definitions and theorems presented in Royden and Fitzpatrick's Real Analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of countable additivity in measure theory
  • Explore the implications of the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem
  • Learn about the construction and properties of Lebesgue measure
  • Investigate the relationship between outer measure and measurable sets
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis, measure theory, or preparing for advanced topics in functional analysis. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to understand the foundational concepts of outer measure and its applications.

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   Reactions: Bashyboy

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K