• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Set of points of strict increase is Borel

  • Thread starter camillio
  • Start date
  • #1
74
2
Hello all,

I'm thinking about the following exercise from Intro to stoch. analysis:

Let [itex]V[/itex] be a continuous, nondecreasing function on [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex] and [itex]\Lambda[/itex] its Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure. Say [itex]t[/itex] is a point of strict increase for [itex]V[/itex] if [itex] V(s) < V(t) < V(u)[/itex] for all [itex]s<t[/itex] and all [itex]u>t[/itex]. Let [itex]I[/itex] be the set of such points. Show that [itex]I[/itex] is a Borel set and [itex]\Lambda(I^C) = 0[/itex].

My attempt to this exercise:
By definition, for any rational point [itex]t \in I[/itex] there exists an [itex]\epsilon[/itex]-neighbourhood of [itex]t[/itex] containing [itex]s<t[/itex] and [itex]u>t[/itex] where [itex]s,u \in I[/itex]. The neighbourhood, forming an open set, is Borel. Countable (due to rationality of [itex]t[/itex]s) union of these neighbourhoods forms [itex]I[/itex] which is Borel too.

Complement of [itex]I[/itex] is hence a countable union of connected sets (say [itex]J_i, i=1,...,n[/itex]) where, due to the nondecreasing property [itex]V(x) = V(y)[/itex] for all [itex]x,y[/itex] in particular [itex]J_i[/itex]. Since [itex]\Lambda(J_i) = |V(x)-V(y)| = 0[/itex] for any connected set [itex]J_i[/itex], hence [itex]\Lambda(I^C) = \Lambda(\cup J_i) = 0[/itex].

Intuitively, I feel that my proof misses or skips something important...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
123
0
I have very little experience with measure theory, but from what I do know, this seems fine to me. If I might ask, where do you feel your proof is lacking? If you elaborate on this, I may be able to offer some input.
 
  • #3
74
2
I have very little experience with measure theory, but from what I do know, this seems fine to me. If I might ask, where do you feel your proof is lacking? If you elaborate on this, I may be able to offer some input.
Thank you for your response, Christoff. My uncertainty followed from my considering only rational [itex]t[/itex]s and I was unsure whether my approach doesn't neglect some sets.
 
  • #4
123
0
Thank you for your response, Christoff. My uncertainty followed from my considering only rational [itex]t[/itex]s and I was unsure whether my approach doesn't neglect some sets.
Hmm, good point. I hadn't considered that. I don't think, however, that it is too difficult to show that any irrational point of strict increase is contained in one of your [itex]\epsilon[/itex]-neighbourhoods of a rational point.

eg. Let [itex]q\in I[/itex] be an irrational point of strict increase. Then there exists a largest open interval [itex](s,u)[/itex] containing q with [itex](s,u)\subset I[/itex]. Since the rationals are dense, there exists a rational [itex]t\in (s,u)[/itex]. Since t is rational, there exists a maximal open interval [itex](s',u')[/itex] containing t, such that [itex](s',u')\subset I[/itex]. By maximality of [itex] (s',u')[/itex], we must have [itex](s,u)\subset (s',u')[/itex].

In conclusion, you don't miss any irrational points. I think that should do it.
 
  • #5
74
2
Thank you Christoff :-)

Probably for the irrational points it follows directly from their property of being accumulation points of sequences of rationals.
 

Related Threads on Set of points of strict increase is Borel

Replies
5
Views
460
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
13K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
882
Replies
8
Views
990
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
966
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
2K
Top