MHB Proving Null Sets: Lebesgue Measure and Lipschitz Functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheBigBadBen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving properties of null sets in relation to Lebesgue measure and Lipschitz functions. The first question asks to show that if a set E has Lebesgue outer measure zero, then the set E^2 also has measure zero. The user presents a proof attempt, identifying a flaw in their approach regarding inequalities but ultimately concluding that E^2 is a null set by covering it with intervals. The second question involves demonstrating that for a K-Lipschitz function f, the measure of the transformed set E^2 is bounded by the product of K and the measure of E. The user expresses satisfaction with their proof for the second question but remains open to suggestions for improvement.
TheBigBadBen
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
I have a final coming up, so I thought I'd post some of my review questions as a way of checking my work. I think I have a working answer for this one, but I'm not sure it's totally right. I'll post it upon request.

At any rate, two related questions:

(1)
Suppose that $$E \subset \mathbb{R}$$ is a set such that $$m^*(E)=0$$. Prove that $$m^*(E^2)=0$$, where $$E^2 = \{x^2|x\in E\}$$

(2)
Suppose that $$f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$$ is a K-Lipschitz function. Show that $$m^*(E^2)≤Km^*(E)$$ for all $$E\subset\mathbb{R}$$

Note that $$m^*$$ refers to the Lebesgue outer-measure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it would be better if you post your work, and then our helpers can give you a critique.

You are more likely to get help this way rather than to request proofs be given to which you can compare your work. :D
 
MarkFL said:
I think it would be better if you post your work, and then our helpers can give you a critique.

You are more likely to get help this way rather than to request proofs be given to which you can compare your work. :D

Fair enough. My proof for the first:

We define the outer measure by

$$m^*(E)=inf \left\{ \sum_{n=1}^{∞}\ell(I_n):E\subset \cup_{n=1}^{∞} I_n \right\}$$

Where each $$I_n$$ is an open interval. Since the outer measure of E is 0, we can state that for any $$\epsilon >0$$, we can equivalently find a collection of sets {I_n} so that the sum of their lengths is less than $$\epsilon$$ and such that E is contained in their union.

We begin with the case that $$E\subset [0,\infty)$$

Consider any $$\epsilon>0$$. There exists a collection of sets {I_n} so that the sum of their lengths is less than $$\sqrt{\epsilon}$$ and such that E is contained in their union. We note that for any $$x\in I_n$$, we have $$x^2 \in I_n^2$$. It follows that $$E^2\subset \cup_{n=1}^{∞} I_n^2$$.

Now, for $$I_n=(a_n,b_n)$$, we note that $$I_n^2=(a_n^2,b_n^2)$$, from which it follows that
$$\ell(I_n^2)=b^2-a^2 = (b - a)(b + a) \geq (b - a)^2 = \ell(I_n)^2$$
^^^^
Not as useful as I thought...It follows that$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ell(I_n^2)≤$$
$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ell(I_n)^2≤$$ <--- this is wrong
$$ \left[ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ell(I_n) \right]^2<$$
$$\left[ \sqrt{\epsilon} \right]^2=\epsilon$$We conclude that for $$E\subset [0,\infty)$$, $$m^*(E^2)=0$$.

Takes a while to type up...
Any critique so-far? Nit-picking is welcome here!
I think I should be able to generalize this relatively easily to the entire real line, but if anybody has a cleverer method I readily welcome that.

**So I found a flaw in my own proof, where I try to establish the inequality. Ends up, I have it going the wrong way. I need to find a way to fix that.**
 
Last edited:
My idea for the proof for the other one is similar. The idea is that if f is Lipschitz, then for any interval I, we should have
$$m^*(f(I))≤K\ell(I)$$
Still not sure how to put it all together.
 
Figured out the solution to my problem. I had tried to come up with some sort of inequality, and wrote:

TheBigBadBen said:
We begin with the case that $$E\subset [0,\infty)$$...

Now, for $$I_n=(a_n,b_n)$$, we note that $$I_n^2=(a_n^2,b_n^2)$$, from which it follows that
$$\ell(I_n^2)=b^2-a^2 = (b - a)(b + a) \geq (b - a)^2 = \ell(I_n)^2$$

Which, as you can see later, is the wrong sort of inequality for what I wanted to do. As it ends up, the easier thing to do is to start by looking at bounded intervals, eventually noting that the arbitrary union of null sets is a null set. So, I'd have something like:

Define $$E_N = E \cap [0,N], N\in \mathbb{N}$$. We note that
$$I_n^2=(a^2,b^2)$$, and
$$\ell(I_n^2)=b^2-a^2 = (b - a)(b + a) \leq 2N(b-a) = 2N\ell(I_n)$$

From there, it's easy enough to use cascading inequalities to show that an interval covering $$\{I_n\}_{n\geq 1}^2$$ of $$E_N^2$$ can be made arbitrarily small. Following a similar logic, we can do this for an integer $$-N$$, defining

$$E_{-N} = E \cap [-N,0], N\in \mathbb{N}$$

And producing the same result. Since $$E^2$$ is the union of all sets $$E_N^2$$, we deduce that $$E^2$$ is the countable union of null sets, and hence is itself a null set.

I'm pretty happy with this proof, but if someone can offer something better, I'm listening.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K