Proving the Monotonicity of Outer Measures: A Simple Task or a Tricky Proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrGandalf
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the monotonicity of the Lebesgue outer measure, specifically that if set A is a subset of set B, then the outer measure of A is less than or equal to that of B (m^*(A) ≤ m^*(B)). Participants clarify that Z_A and Z_B represent sets of numbers derived from the lengths of intervals covering the respective sets, and that the infimum of a set is not influenced by the size of the set but rather by its lower bounds. The proof hinges on demonstrating that Z_B is a subset of Z_A, allowing the conclusion about the infimums to be drawn.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue outer measure and its definition
  • Familiarity with the concept of infimum in set theory
  • Knowledge of interval notation and properties of intervals
  • Basic principles of set theory, particularly subset relations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lebesgue outer measure in detail
  • Explore the concept of infimum and supremum in real analysis
  • Investigate the relationship between set size and lower bounds
  • Practice proving properties of measures with various examples
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying real analysis or measure theory, as well as educators looking to clarify concepts related to outer measures and monotonicity proofs.

MrGandalf
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I have a sneaky suspicion that this is a fairly simple task, but I just can't seem to break through this particular proof.

Homework Statement

The (Lebesgue) outer measure of any set [itex]A\subseteq\mathbb{R}[/itex] is:

[itex]m^*(A) = inf Z_A[/itex]

where

[itex]Z_A = \bigg\{\sum_{n=1}^\infty l(I_n)\;:\;I_n\;\text{are intervals},\;A\subseteq\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty I_n\bigg\}[/itex]

My problem is to prove that [itex]m^*[/itex] is monotone, i.e

If [itex]A\subset B[/itex] then [itex]m^*(A) \leq m^*(B)[/itex]

The hints are to show that [itex]Z_B \subset Z_A[/itex] and then use the definition of the infimum to show that the larger set can't have an infimum greater than the smaller set.

The attempt at a solution

If [itex]I_n[/itex] covers B, then it will also cover A.
[itex]A\subset B\subset \bigcup_n I_n[/itex]. Hence [itex]Z_B \subset Z_A[/itex].

And now I am confused! :) I have two questions.

1) I was under the impression that [itex]l(I_n)[/itex] was the length of a certain intervall. But that makes [itex]Z_A[/itex] and [itex]Z_B[/itex] numbers. How can one number be a subset of another number?

2) My other question is regarding the statement about infimums. What does the size of a set have to do with what the infimum can be? For instance.
[itex]A = \{2, 3\}[/itex] and [itex]B = \{1,2,3,4\}[/itex]. Here [itex]A\subset B[/itex] but [itex]\text{inf}\; B < \text{inf}\; A[/itex]

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) No, Z_A and Z_B are sets of numbers. For each open interval covering (I_n) of A, you get the number [itex]\sum l(I_n)[/itex]. As you range over all such coverings, you get a whole bunch of different numbers, and Z_A is the set of those numbers.

2) The size of a set doesn't affect its inf, but if A is a subset of B, then B's inf is less than or equal to A's. Because inf(B) is the greatest lower bound of B, and if A is a subset of B, then every lower bound of B is a lower bound of A, and hence the greatest lower bound of B is a lower bound for A, and hence less than or equal to the greatest lower bound for A.
 
Thank you!

I will charge the proof with newfound courage and motivation. :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K