Question about images of measurable functions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the set B, defined as the collection of points in ℝ where the measure of the inverse image under a measurable function f is greater than zero, is countable. The original poster seeks guidance on how to approach this proof.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest leveraging properties of complete metric spaces to explore the implications of B being uncountable. The original poster questions the derivation of a contradiction from the assumption of uncountability, particularly regarding the implications for the measure of the domain.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various implications of the assumptions made. Some guidance has been offered regarding the properties of measures and intersections with finite sets, but no consensus has been reached on the proof strategy.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the measure theory context, specifically regarding the properties of measurable functions and their inverse images. The original poster's assumptions about the measure of the domain and the nature of the set B are under scrutiny.

bbkrsen585
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I want to prove the following.

Statement: Given that f is measurable, let
B = {y \in ℝ : μ{f^(-1)(y)} > 0}. I want to prove that B is a countable set.

(to clarify the f^(-1)(y) is the inverse image of y; also μ stands for measure)

Please set me in the right direction. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Use the fact that any uncountable subset of a complete metric space has a condensation point (a point whose every neighborhood contains uncountably many points of the set).
 
So I've thought about that, but here's the thing. Suppose I assume that B is uncountable. Then, for each y in B, there is a corresponding open image that has measure greater than zero. Since we have uncountably many y's (by assumption), there would be an uncountably many number of open images with measure greater than zero, which implies that the domain is of infinite measure. I'm not sure where to derive the contradiction from this point. Thanks.
 
bbkrsen585 said:
So I've thought about that, but here's the thing. Suppose I assume that B is uncountable. Then, for each y in B, there is a corresponding open image that has measure greater than zero. Since we have uncountably many y's (by assumption), there would be an uncountably many number of open images with measure greater than zero, which implies that the domain is of infinite measure. I'm not sure where to derive the contradiction from this point. Thanks.

Intersect your sets with, say, [0,1] which has finite measure. The sum of the measures of all of the sets in B intersected with [0,1] is less than or equal to 1, right? Can an uncountable number of the measures be positive?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K