Proving Caratheodory's Condition for Measurable Sets in Measure Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter SqueeSpleen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Condition
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving Caratheodory's condition for measurable sets within the context of measure theory. The original poster is attempting to demonstrate that if a set E is measurable, it satisfies Caratheodory's condition, which involves the relationship between the external measure of a set A and its intersections with E and its complement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster references the subadditivity of external measure and expresses uncertainty about proving the reverse inequality. They also inquire about the definitions of measurability used in different texts. Other participants discuss the definition of measurability and explore related concepts, such as the construction of a decreasing sequence of sets and the implications of their measures.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their thoughts and questions. Some guidance has been offered regarding definitions and related concepts, but there is no explicit consensus on the approaches or solutions being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating terminology differences, such as "outer measure" versus "exterior measure," and discussing the implications of various definitions of measurability. There is also mention of constraints related to the construction of sequences of sets and their measures.

SqueeSpleen
Messages
138
Reaction score
5
Measure Theory, Caratheodory condition

The set [itex]E \subset ℝ^{p}[/itex] satisfy Caratheodory's condition if:
[itex]\forall A \subset ℝ^{p}[/itex]
[itex]m_e (A) = m_e(A \cap E) + m_e(A \cap E^c)[/itex]
Prove that if E is measurable then E satisfy the Caratheodory's condition.
I know
[itex]m_e (A) \leq m_e(A \cap E) + m_e(A \cap E^c)[/itex] for the subaditivity of the external measure, but I didn't found a way to prove:
[itex]m_e (A) \geq m_e(A \cap E) + m_e(A \cap E^c)[/itex]

I'll post again if I figure out something, but I already skipped this some days ago because I was an entire hour without any advance at all.
Feel free to make any correction's, it's the first time I write something about this subject in English and I'm not sure if I'm chosing the correct words.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
SqueeSpleen said:
The set [itex]E \subset ℝ^{p}[/itex] satisfy Caratheodory's condition if:
[itex]\forall A \subset ℝ^{p}[/itex]
[itex]m_e (A) = m_e(A \cap E) + m_e(A \cap E^c)[/itex]
Prove that if E is measurable then E satisfy the Caratheodory's condition.
I know
[itex]m_e (A) \leq m_e(A \cap E) + m_e(A \cap E^c)[/itex] for the subaditivity of the external measure, but I didn't found a way to prove:
[itex]m_e (A) \geq m_e(A \cap E) + m_e(A \cap E^c)[/itex]

I'll post again if I figure out something, but I already skipped this some days ago because I was an entire hour without any advance at all.
Feel free to make any correction's, it's the first time I write something about this subject in English and I'm not sure if I'm chosing the correct words.

Some books present the Caratheodory condition as the definition of measurability of E. What definition does your book use?
 
A set is measurable if [itex]\forall \epsilon > 0[/itex] [itex]\exists U \in \cal{U}[/itex] such that:
[itex]A \subset U[/itex] and [itex]m_e (U-A) < \epsilon[/itex]
[itex]\cal{U}[/itex] is the family of the [itex]\sigma[/itex]-elemental sets.
I also know that a set E is measurable then [itex]m_i(E)=m_e(E)[/itex]
 
Last edited:
On a related topic (I don't know if I'd better create a new thread or not).

I have to find a decreasing sequense [itex]\left \{ E_k \right \}_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \subset P(R^p)[/itex] such that [itex]m_e(\displaystyle\bigcap\limits_{i=0}^{\infty} E_k) < \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}m_e(E_k)[/itex]
I think that the following sequence would work:
Notation: [itex]\overline{B}(c,r)=\left [ c-r,c+r \right ][/itex]
[itex]E_1 = \overline{B}(0,1)[/itex]
[itex]E_2 = \overline{B}(0,\frac{1}{2}) \cup \overline{B}(1,\frac{1}{2})[/itex]
...
[itex]E_n = \displaystyle\bigcup\limits_{i=0}^{n-1} \overline{B}(\frac{k}{n},\frac{1}{n})[/itex]
What I'm trying is to get a set which intersection is countable then of null measure.
While the limit of its measures is 1.
It's this idea right or I'd better to search other way of solving this? (If feel like it's not, I think that the intersection will not be countable, it will be [0,1] but I liked this idea so I needed to write it clearly to see that's not good).
I'd try to do it with a no measurable set?
PD: The correct term is "outer measure" not "exterior measure"? Or both are right?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K