Proof of Outer Lebesgue Measure Monotonicity and Subadditivity

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the proof of the outer Lebesgue measure's properties, specifically its monotonicity and subadditivity. The outer Lebesgue measure is defined as $$m^*(A)=inf\{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}v(R_n):A \subset\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}R_n$$, where $R_n$ are open rectangles and $v(R_n)$ is the volume of $R_n$. The proof demonstrates that if $A_n \subset \mathbb{R}$ and $m^*(A_n)<+\infty$ for all $n$, then $$m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n\right ) \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)$$ holds true. The discussion also addresses the case where $m^*(A_k) = +\infty$ for some $k$, confirming that the outer measure of the union is also infinite.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of outer Lebesgue measure and its definition
  • Familiarity with open rectangles and their volumes
  • Knowledge of mathematical concepts such as infimum and series
  • Basic principles of measure theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lebesgue measure in detail
  • Explore the concept of measure theory and its applications
  • Learn about the differences between Lebesgue and Riemann integrals
  • Investigate the implications of monotonicity and subadditivity in measure theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of measure theory, and researchers interested in the properties of Lebesgue measure and its applications in real analysis.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I am looking at the proof that the outer Lebesgue measure that is defined by $$m^*(A)=inf\{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}v(R_n):A \subset\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}R_n , ( \text{ where } R_n \text{ are open rectangles}) \}$$ is actually an outer measure.

($v(R_n)$, the volume of R is the product of the lengths $I_j$.)

To show that it is an outer measure, we have to show the monotonicity and the subadditivity.

For the subadditivity:

If $A_n \subset \mathbb{R}$ then $$m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} A_n\right ) \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)$$

We suppose that $m^*(A_n)<+\infty, \forall n$.

Let $\epsilon>0$. Then for each $n$ there are rectangles $R_j^n,j=1,2,...$ such that $A_n \subset \cup_{j=1}^{\infty}R_j^n$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}v(R_j^n)<m^*(A_n)+\frac{\epsilon}{2^n}$.

Then $\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n\subset\cup_{j,n}R_j^n$

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}v(R_j^n)<\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)+\epsilon$$

$$m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n \right ) \leq \sum_{j,n}v(R_j^n)<\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)+\epsilon \\ \Rightarrow m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n\right ) \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)$$Could you explain me this proof??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

I am looking at the proof that the outer Lebesgue measure that is defined by $$m^*(A)=inf\{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}v(R_n):A \subset\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}R_n , ( \text{ where } R_n \text{ are open rectangles}) \}$$ is actually an outer measure.

($v(R_n)$, the volume of R is the product of the lengths $I_j$.)

To show that it is an outer measure, we have to show the monotonicity and the subadditivity.

For the subadditivity:

If $A_n \subset \mathbb{R}$ then $$m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty} A_n\right ) \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)$$

We suppose that $m^*(A_n)<+\infty, \forall n$.

Let $\epsilon>0$. Then for each $n$ there are rectangles $R_j^n,j=1,2,...$ such that $A_n \subset \cup_{j=1}^{\infty}R_j^n$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}v(R_j^n)<m^*(A_n)+\frac{\epsilon}{2^n}$.

Then $\cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n\subset\cup_{j,n}R_j^n$

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}v(R_j^n)<\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)+\epsilon$$

$$m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n \right ) \leq \sum_{j,n}v(R_j^n)<\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)+\epsilon \\ \Rightarrow m^* \left ( \cup_{n=1}^{\infty}A_n\right ) \leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}m^*(A_n)$$Could you explain me this proof??

Hi mathmari,

The proof displayed is incomplete. Everything is fine until the last three lines of inequalities, where there is no explanation. There also are two cases to consider -- one which deals with $m^*(A_k) = +\infty$ for some $k$, and the other which you've displayed. If $m^*(A_k) = +\infty$ for some $k$, then suppose $\{R_j\}$ is an arbitrary covering of $\cup A_n$ by open rectangles. These rectangles also cover $A_k$, and thus $\sum_{j = 1}^\infty v(R_j) = +\infty$. This shows that $m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) = +\infty$.

Now let's go back to your case, where $m^*(A_n) < +\infty$ for all $n$. We want to show that $m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) \le \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n)$, which is equivalent to showing

$$ m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) \le \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \epsilon$$ for all $$ \epsilon > 0.$$

By definition of the infimum of a set $S \subset \Bbb R$, any number greater than $\inf S$ is not a lower bound for $S$. Keeping this in mind, we know that for every $\epsilon > 0$ and $n \in \Bbb N$, $m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}$ is not a lower bound for the set

$$S_n := \{\sum_{j = 1}^\infty v(R_{j,n})\, |\, \text{$R_{j,n}$ are open rectangles such that $A_n \subset \cup_{j=1}^\infty R_{j,n}$}\}.$$

Therefore, for each $n$, there exists a covering $\{R_{j,n}\}_{j= 1}^\infty$ of $A_n$ by open rectangles such that

$$ \sum_{j=1}^\infty v(R_{j,n}) < m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}.$$

Since $\cup_{j=1}^\infty R_{j,n} \supset A_n$ for all $n$, we have $\cup_{j,n} R_{j,n} \supset \cup_{n = 1}^\infty A_n$. Hence, by definition of $m^*(\cup_{n = 1}^\infty A_n)$ and the previous inequality,

$$m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) \le \sum_{j,n} v(R_{j,n}) = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \sum_{j = 1}^\infty m^*(A_n) \le \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \left(m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}\right) = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \epsilon.$$

Since $\epsilon$ was arbitrary, the result follows.
 
Last edited:
(Happy)(Happy)(Happy)(Happy)
Euge said:
Hi mathmari,

The proof displayed is incomplete. Everything is fine until the last three lines of inequalities, where there is no explanation. There also are two cases to consider -- one which deals with $m^*(A_k) = +\infty$ for some $k$, and the other which you've displayed. If $m^*(A_k) = +\infty$ for some $k$, then suppose $\{R_j\}$ is an arbitrary covering of $\cup A_n$ by open rectangles. These rectangles also cover $A_k$, and thus $\sum_{j = 1}^\infty v(R_j) = +\infty$. This shows that $m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) = +\infty$.

Now let's go back to your case, where $m^*(A_n) < +\infty$ for all $n$. We want to show that $m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) \le \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n)$, which is equivalent to showing

$$ m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) \le \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \epsilon$$ for all $$ \epsilon > 0.$$

By definition of the infimum of a set $S \subset \Bbb R$, any number greater than $\inf S$ is not a lower bound for $S$. Keeping this in mind, we know that for every $\epsilon > 0$ and $n \in \Bbb N$, $m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}$ is not a lower bound for the set

$$S_n := \{\sum_{j = 1}^\infty v(R_{j,n})\, |\, \text{$R_{j,n}$ are open rectangles such that $A_n \subset \cup_{j=1}^\infty R_{j,n}$}\}.$$

Therefore, for each $n$, there exists a covering $\{R_{j,n}\}_{j= 1}^\infty$ of $A_n$ by open rectangles such that

$$ \sum_{j=1}^\infty v(R_{j,n}) < m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}.$$

Since $\cup_{j=1}^\infty R_{j,n} \supset A_n$ for all $n$, we have $\cup_{j,n} R_{j,n} \supset \cup_{n = 1}^\infty A_n$. Hence, by definition of $m^*(\cup_{n = 1}^\infty A_n)$ and the previous inequality,

$$m^*(\cup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) \le \sum_{j,n} v(R_{j,n}) = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \sum_{j = 1}^\infty m^*(A_n) \le \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \left(m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}\right) = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \epsilon.$$

Since $\epsilon$ was arbitrary, the result follows.

I understand! Thank you very much for the explanation! (Happy)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K