Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Tricky measure theory question

  1. Dec 19, 2009 #1
    One possible definition of measurability is this: A set [tex]E \subseteq \mathbb R^d[/tex] is (Lebesgue) measurable if for every [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex] there exists an open set [tex]\mathcal O \supseteq E[/tex] such that [tex]m_*(\mathcal O \setminus E) < \epsilon[/tex]. Here, [tex]m_*[/tex] indicates Lebesgue outer measure.

    Apparently, an equivalent definition is this: "For every [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex] there exists a closed set [tex]F \subseteq E[/tex] such that [tex]m_*(E\setminus F) < \epsilon[/tex]."

    Showing the equivalence of these definitions was a practice problem recently for the final exam in my real analysis class. But I couldn't get it, and even though I'm on break now, it's bugging me. Can someone help? Thanks! (This is also apparently a problem in Stein-Shakarchi's textbook, Real Analysis.)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 20, 2009 #2

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    ==>: Suppose E is measurable. Then E^c is measurable. Let O be the open set associated to E^c as in the definition of measurability. Then use F=O^c.

    <==: Same thing, just use the open/closed duality in the same way.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook