Proving M1 x M1 ⊆ M2 using Lebesgue Measure

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tedjn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurable Sets
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the collection of measurable sets in one dimension, M1, when taken as a Cartesian product (M1 x M1), is a subset of the collection of measurable sets in two dimensions, M2, under Lebesgue measure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to clarify the definition of M1 x M1 and expresses uncertainty about how to begin the proof. Participants inquire about the definition and assumptions related to the sets involved, particularly the nature of M1 and its Cartesian product.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring foundational definitions and assumptions related to measurable sets and their properties under Lebesgue measure. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between Borel sets and the sigma-algebra generated by their Cartesian products, but there is no explicit consensus on the proof's direction yet.

Contextual Notes

The original poster indicates a lack of familiarity with Lebesgue measure, which may affect their ability to engage with the problem fully. There is also an emphasis on clarifying assumptions before proceeding with the proof.

Tedjn
Messages
733
Reaction score
0
This is in the context of a homework problem but not directly related.

If Mn is the collection of measurable sets of Rn under Lebesgue measure, what would be the first step in showing that M1 x M1 ⊆ M2. I'm quite convinced it's true, but my knowledge of and ability to work with the Lebesgue measure is very poor, so I have no clue where to begin.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OK, the first thing we need to know. How did you define [tex]M_1\times M_1[/tex] ??
 
Definition of M1 x M1 would be the collection of all subsets of R2 that is a Cartesian product of two sets in M1. Sorry I left that out.
 
OK, it's pretty hard to know what assumptions you already know. I'll assume you know the following (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) Let [tex]\mathcal{B}_1[/tex] be the Borel sets of [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex]. Set [tex]\mathcal{B}_2[/tex] to be the [tex]\sigma[/tex]-algebra generated by all sets of the form [tex]B\times B^\prime[/tex], with [tex]B,B^\prime\in \mathcal{B}_1[/tex]

2) There is a unique [tex]\sigma[/tex]-finite measure [tex]\lambda_2[/tex] on [tex]\mathcal{B}_2[/tex] such that [tex]\lambda_2(B\times B^\prime)=\lambda_1(B)\lambda_1(B^\prime)[/tex].


Now take E and F two Lebesque measurable sets in [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex]. Then there exist Borel sets [tex]E_i, F_i[/tex] such that [tex]E_1\subseteq E\subseteq E_2[/tex] and [tex]F_1\subseteq F\subseteq F_2[/tex] with [tex]\lambda_1(E_1)=\lambda_1(E_2)[/tex] and [tex]\lambda_1(F_1)=\lambda_1(F_2)[/tex].

Thus we have [tex]E_1\times F_1\subseteq E\times F\subseteq E_2\times F_2[/tex] and [tex]\lambda_2(E_1\times F_1)=\lambda_1(E_1)\lambda_1(F_1)=\lambda_1(E_2)\lambda_1(F_2)=\lambda_2(E_2\times F_2)[/tex]. This implies that [tex]E\times F\in M_2[/tex].

I hope this satisfies. Otherwise, just tell me what you don't know or what parts you don't get... (the more information you give me, the more I can help)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K