Proving Finite Lebesgue Measure of A When B Is Contained Within

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mikesmith00
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the Lebesgue measure of sets A and B, specifically exploring whether the finiteness of the measure of the difference set A\B implies the finiteness of the measure of A when B is contained within A. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical proofs related to Lebesgue measure in real analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the finiteness of m(A\B) implies that m(A) is finite, expressing an intuitive belief but struggling to find rigorous proof.
  • Another participant counters that the statement is not true in general, providing examples where m(A\B) is finite while m(A) is infinite, specifically in the context of Lebesgue measure on the real line.
  • A third participant shares their preparation for real analysis exams and discusses a related problem involving integrability and the summation of measures of sets defined by a function.
  • A later reply suggests a potential resolution by stating that if two unions of sets are equal, their measures must also be equal, implying that if one measure is finite, the other must be as well, while inviting feedback on this reasoning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the initial claim about the relationship between m(A\B) and m(A). While some participants explore the implications of the claim, others provide counterexamples that challenge its validity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the initial proposition.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific examples and contexts where the intuition about measures may fail, particularly in infinite measure spaces. There are also mentions of specific mathematical constructs related to integrability and measures that may not be fully explored.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in real analysis, particularly those studying Lebesgue measure, integration, and related mathematical proofs may find this discussion beneficial.

mikesmith00
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Is there anyway to prove that if I have (m is the lebesgue measure) m(A\B) is finite, then m(A) is finite? It seems intuitive to me, but I'm having trouble coming up with rigorous mathematical reasoning for it. B is completely contained within A. If there's anything else that might clarify this, let me know, because this is bugging me. Thanks for any help that you can offer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason you're having trouble proving it is that it's not true (at least when you consider the Lebesgue measure on the whole real line). Consider the trivial example of A=all reals and [tex]B = (-\infty,0)\cup(0,\infty)[/tex]. For which m(A\B)=m({0})=0, but A has infinite measure. For a somewhat less trivial example take A=all reals and B=all irrationals. It is very important to note that although the "identity" m(A\B)=m(A)-m(B) seems plausible and intuitive, it fails in many infinite measure spaces.
 
Thank you. I'm working on getting ready for my real analysis comps, and trying to go through all of the books that were listed on the syllabus for the exam. This was part of a question in one of the books that I'm working on (Stein and Shakarachi vol 3) and I'm trying to show that if f is integrable, then [tex]\sum m(E_{2^{k}}) < \infty[/tex] summed from [tex]k= -\infty[/tex] to [tex]\infty[/tex] with [tex]E_{2^{k}}=\left\{x:f(x)>2^{k}\right\}[/tex]. My first attempt was that I was able to show that if I found disjoint sets [tex]F_{k} = E_{2^{k}}{\setminus}E_{2^{k+1}}[/tex] then [tex]\sum m(F_{k}) < \infty[/tex] summed from [tex]k= -\infty[/tex] to [tex]\infty[/tex]. I was trying to use this to show that if we know that sum F is finite, then sum E is finite. Looks like I might have to start on a different approach. Thanks for your help again.
 
Last edited:
I believe I have it solved. If we're taking the measure of the union, and I have two unions that are equal to each other, then the measures are equal, so then if the measure of one is finite, then the other must be finite as well. If you see any flaws in this logic, any contributions to this are more than welcome.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
4K