Proving: If A is \lambda ^* -measurable, Then x+A is \lambda ^* -measurable

  • Thread starter Thread starter CornMuffin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lambda Measurable
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
CornMuffin
Messages
51
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Prove:
If [itex]A[/itex] is [itex]\lambda ^*[/itex]-measurable and [itex]x\in \mathbb{R} ^n[/itex]
then [itex]x+A[/itex] is [itex]\lambda ^*[/itex]-measurable.

My attempt at the proof is below, but i feel like it is not a correct proof.

Homework Equations


Notation:
[itex]\lambda ^*[/itex] is the lebesgue outer measure


The Attempt at a Solution


Proof:
let [itex]A[/itex] be a [itex]\lambda ^*[/itex]-measurable set, and let [itex]x\in \mathbb{R} ^n[/itex] and let [itex]S[/itex] be the entire space.
Then [itex]\forall T\subset S[/itex], [itex]\lambda ^* (T) = \lambda ^* (T\cap A)+\lambda ^* (T\cap A^c )[/itex]
Lesbesgue outer measure is translation invariant,
so, [itex]\lambda ^* (T-x) = \lambda ^* ((T-x)\cap A) + \lambda ^* ((T-x)\cap A^c)[/itex]
[itex] =\lambda ^* (T\cap (A+x)) + \lambda ^* (T\cap (A^c +x)) [/itex]
[itex] = \lambda ^* (T\cap (A+x)) + \lambda ^* (T\cap (A+x)^c)[/itex]
[itex] = \lambda ^* (T)[/itex]

so, [itex]x+A[/itex] is [itex]\lambda ^*[/itex]-measurable
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Using Caratheodory's Criterion is the correct way of doing this, but all you've concluded is what you knew to begin with: the outer measure is translation invariant.

You know that A is measurable right? And to show that x+A is measurable you must show that
[itex]\lambda^*(T \cap (x+A)) + \lambda^*(T \cap (x+A)^c ) = \lambda^*(T)[/itex]
for every set [itex]T \subseteq \mathbb R^n[/itex]. So try starting with [itex]\lambda^*(T \cap (x+A)) + \lambda^*(T \cap (x+A)^c )[/itex] and see if you can get the [itex]\lambda^*(T)[/itex]

Edit: Your proof has the right ideas, but not the right set-up.