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
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between the Lebesgue measure of sets A and B, specifically questioning whether the finiteness of m(A\B) implies the finiteness of m(A) when B is contained within A. It is established that this assertion is false, as illustrated by examples where m(A\B) can be finite while m(A) remains infinite, such as A being the entire real line and B being the set of all reals excluding zero. The discussion also touches on the importance of understanding measure properties in infinite measure spaces, highlighting the failure of the intuitive identity m(A\B) = m(A) - m(B) in such contexts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue measure and its properties
  • Familiarity with real analysis concepts, particularly integration and measure theory
  • Knowledge of set operations and their implications on measures
  • Experience with examples of infinite measure spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lebesgue measure in infinite measure spaces
  • Explore the implications of the identity m(A\B) = m(A) - m(B) in various contexts
  • Review the integration theory as presented in Stein and Shakarachi's "Real Analysis" volume 3
  • Investigate disjoint sets and their measures in relation to integrable functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those preparing for real analysis examinations, researchers in measure theory, and anyone interested in the nuances of Lebesgue measure and its applications in analysis.

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 B = (-\infty,0)\cup(0,\infty). 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 \sum m(E_{2^{k}}) < \infty summed from k= -\infty to \infty with E_{2^{k}}=\left\{x:f(x)>2^{k}\right\}. My first attempt was that I was able to show that if I found disjoint sets F_{k} = E_{2^{k}}{\setminus}E_{2^{k+1}} then \sum m(F_{k}) < \infty summed from k= -\infty to \infty. 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
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
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
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
671