Proving Measurability and Zero Area for Finite Sets in a Plane

  • Thread starter Thread starter courtrigrad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurable Sets
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that specific finite sets in a plane are measurable and have zero area. For a single point, it is suggested to demonstrate that it can be enclosed within intervals of arbitrarily small length. For a finite number of points, the concept of summability is introduced, emphasizing that the sum of a finite number of zero areas results in zero. In the case of line segments, the approach involves surrounding each segment with rectangles that can be made increasingly narrow. Overall, the methods outlined provide a clear path to establish the measurability and zero area of these finite sets.
courtrigrad
Messages
1,236
Reaction score
2
Lets say we have the following sets: (a) set consisting of a single point (b) set consisting of finite number of points in a plane (c) union of a finite collection of line segments in a plane. We want to prove that each of these sets is measurable and has zero area. Ok so here is how I started:

So for (a) Q is a step that can be enclosed between two step regions S and T so that there is one c which satisfies the inequalities a(S) \leq c \leq a(T) for all regions S and T satisfying this then Q is measurable and a(q) = c So should I choose c = 0? This will be both less than and greater than two given areas. Should I do the same thing for the other parts?

Thanks a lot :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
any help would be appreciated
 
Looks to me like they are pretty straight forward. In fact, you don't need to think about "measure" in general. For the first one, a single point, just show that a single point can be contained in intervals of arbitrarily small length.
For the second, a finite number of points, just use "summability" (what is the sum of a finite number of 0s?) or take a small rectangle about each point- and add those. Show that the rectangles can be taken to be arbitrarily small.
For the third, line segments, surround each segment by rectangles of the same length as the segment and of smaller and smaller widths.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top