What is the Measure of an Unbounded Set in Lebesgue Outer Measure Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Funky1981
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Set
Funky1981
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Suppose A is not a bounded set and m(A∩B)≤(3/4)m(B) for every B. what is m(A)??

here, m is Lebesgue Outer Measure

My attemption is :

Let An=A∩[-n,n], then m(A)=lim m(An)= lim m(An∩[-n,n]) ≤ lim (3/4)m([-n,n]) = infinite.

is my solution right? I am confusing m(A) < infinite , it doest make sense for me. Could someone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you wrote is correct as far as it goes, but ##m(A) \leq \infty## doesn't tell you anything new: this is of course true of the outer measure of any set.

Certainly ##m(A) = 0## is possible: consider ##A = \mathbb{Q}##, for example.

Is ##m(A) > 0## possible? Hint: consider ##A = B##.
 
There are three possible cases worth thinking about.
- m(A)=0, which jbunniii showed is possible.
- 0&lt;m(A)&lt;\infty, for which jbunniii provided a very useful hint.
- m(A)=\infty... Is this possible? Consider the sets A_n=A\cap[-n,n] you defined. If we have to have 0&lt;m(A_n)&lt;\infty for some n\in \mathbb N (Is this true?), then maybe the same trick as above can be reused.

It's worth noting that the answer to this question depends on a special property of the Lebesgue measure on \mathbb R, which fails for some other infinite measures. Namely, we're using the property that the whole space is a countable union of finite-measure sets.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top