Lebesgue and Jordan measure and some example
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $S$ be semiring with identity element $E$ and $m$ is $sigma$-additive measure on $S$.
Theorem: Suppose $S$ - semiring. Then minimal ring, containing $S$ is the following set: $$R(S)=left{bigsqcup
limits_{i=1}^{n}A_i:A_iin Sright}.$$ In other words, $R(S)$ is the
family of all finite disjoint unions of sets in $S$.
Definition 1: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Jordan measure in the following way: $$mu_J^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{n}m(A_i): A_1,dots, A_nin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{n}A_iright}.$$
Definition 2: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Lebesgue measure in the following way: $$mu^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{infty}m(A_i): A_1, A_2,dotsin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{infty}A_iright}.$$
Remark 1: It is not so difficult to show that for any $Asubseteq E$ we have $mu^*(A)leq mu^*_J(A)$.
Remark 2: ("Triangle inequality" for measure) If $A, Bsubseteq E$ then the following estimate holds: $$|mu^*(A)-mu^*(B)|leq
mu^*(Atriangle B)$$
Also the same "triangle inequality" is true for outer Jordan measure.
Definition: We say that $Asubseteq E$ is Lebesgue measurable (Jordan measurable), if for any $varepsilon>0$ $exists
A_{varepsilon}in R(S)$ such that $mu^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$ ($mu_J^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$). Denote by $M$ and $M_J$ the family of
all subsets of $E$ which are Lebesgue measurable and Jordan
measurable, respectively.
Then by remark 1 it follows that $M_Jsubseteq M$. Also, note that $R(S)subseteq M_Jsubseteq M$. But the below example will show that $M_Jneq M$.
Example: Denote by ${a,b}$ the following intervals: $[a,b], [a,b), (a,b], (a,b)$. Consider the semiring $S={{a,b}:{a,b}subseteq [0,1]}$ with identity $E=[0,1]$. Consider the set $E=mathbb{Q}_{[0,1]}subset [0,1]$.
Then we can show that $mu^*(E)=0$ and $mu^*_J(E)=1$. I can show that $Ein M$.
But how to show that $Enotin M_J$?
I have tried to prove by contradiction and also tries to use remark $2$ but no results. I would be very thankful if anyojne can show the solution?
measure-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $S$ be semiring with identity element $E$ and $m$ is $sigma$-additive measure on $S$.
Theorem: Suppose $S$ - semiring. Then minimal ring, containing $S$ is the following set: $$R(S)=left{bigsqcup
limits_{i=1}^{n}A_i:A_iin Sright}.$$ In other words, $R(S)$ is the
family of all finite disjoint unions of sets in $S$.
Definition 1: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Jordan measure in the following way: $$mu_J^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{n}m(A_i): A_1,dots, A_nin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{n}A_iright}.$$
Definition 2: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Lebesgue measure in the following way: $$mu^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{infty}m(A_i): A_1, A_2,dotsin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{infty}A_iright}.$$
Remark 1: It is not so difficult to show that for any $Asubseteq E$ we have $mu^*(A)leq mu^*_J(A)$.
Remark 2: ("Triangle inequality" for measure) If $A, Bsubseteq E$ then the following estimate holds: $$|mu^*(A)-mu^*(B)|leq
mu^*(Atriangle B)$$
Also the same "triangle inequality" is true for outer Jordan measure.
Definition: We say that $Asubseteq E$ is Lebesgue measurable (Jordan measurable), if for any $varepsilon>0$ $exists
A_{varepsilon}in R(S)$ such that $mu^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$ ($mu_J^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$). Denote by $M$ and $M_J$ the family of
all subsets of $E$ which are Lebesgue measurable and Jordan
measurable, respectively.
Then by remark 1 it follows that $M_Jsubseteq M$. Also, note that $R(S)subseteq M_Jsubseteq M$. But the below example will show that $M_Jneq M$.
Example: Denote by ${a,b}$ the following intervals: $[a,b], [a,b), (a,b], (a,b)$. Consider the semiring $S={{a,b}:{a,b}subseteq [0,1]}$ with identity $E=[0,1]$. Consider the set $E=mathbb{Q}_{[0,1]}subset [0,1]$.
Then we can show that $mu^*(E)=0$ and $mu^*_J(E)=1$. I can show that $Ein M$.
But how to show that $Enotin M_J$?
I have tried to prove by contradiction and also tries to use remark $2$ but no results. I would be very thankful if anyojne can show the solution?
measure-theory
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $S$ be semiring with identity element $E$ and $m$ is $sigma$-additive measure on $S$.
Theorem: Suppose $S$ - semiring. Then minimal ring, containing $S$ is the following set: $$R(S)=left{bigsqcup
limits_{i=1}^{n}A_i:A_iin Sright}.$$ In other words, $R(S)$ is the
family of all finite disjoint unions of sets in $S$.
Definition 1: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Jordan measure in the following way: $$mu_J^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{n}m(A_i): A_1,dots, A_nin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{n}A_iright}.$$
Definition 2: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Lebesgue measure in the following way: $$mu^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{infty}m(A_i): A_1, A_2,dotsin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{infty}A_iright}.$$
Remark 1: It is not so difficult to show that for any $Asubseteq E$ we have $mu^*(A)leq mu^*_J(A)$.
Remark 2: ("Triangle inequality" for measure) If $A, Bsubseteq E$ then the following estimate holds: $$|mu^*(A)-mu^*(B)|leq
mu^*(Atriangle B)$$
Also the same "triangle inequality" is true for outer Jordan measure.
Definition: We say that $Asubseteq E$ is Lebesgue measurable (Jordan measurable), if for any $varepsilon>0$ $exists
A_{varepsilon}in R(S)$ such that $mu^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$ ($mu_J^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$). Denote by $M$ and $M_J$ the family of
all subsets of $E$ which are Lebesgue measurable and Jordan
measurable, respectively.
Then by remark 1 it follows that $M_Jsubseteq M$. Also, note that $R(S)subseteq M_Jsubseteq M$. But the below example will show that $M_Jneq M$.
Example: Denote by ${a,b}$ the following intervals: $[a,b], [a,b), (a,b], (a,b)$. Consider the semiring $S={{a,b}:{a,b}subseteq [0,1]}$ with identity $E=[0,1]$. Consider the set $E=mathbb{Q}_{[0,1]}subset [0,1]$.
Then we can show that $mu^*(E)=0$ and $mu^*_J(E)=1$. I can show that $Ein M$.
But how to show that $Enotin M_J$?
I have tried to prove by contradiction and also tries to use remark $2$ but no results. I would be very thankful if anyojne can show the solution?
measure-theory
Let $S$ be semiring with identity element $E$ and $m$ is $sigma$-additive measure on $S$.
Theorem: Suppose $S$ - semiring. Then minimal ring, containing $S$ is the following set: $$R(S)=left{bigsqcup
limits_{i=1}^{n}A_i:A_iin Sright}.$$ In other words, $R(S)$ is the
family of all finite disjoint unions of sets in $S$.
Definition 1: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Jordan measure in the following way: $$mu_J^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{n}m(A_i): A_1,dots, A_nin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{n}A_iright}.$$
Definition 2: If $Asubset E$, then we define outer Lebesgue measure in the following way: $$mu^*(A)=inf left{sum
limits_{i=1}^{infty}m(A_i): A_1, A_2,dotsin S, Asubseteq
bigcuplimits_{i=1}^{infty}A_iright}.$$
Remark 1: It is not so difficult to show that for any $Asubseteq E$ we have $mu^*(A)leq mu^*_J(A)$.
Remark 2: ("Triangle inequality" for measure) If $A, Bsubseteq E$ then the following estimate holds: $$|mu^*(A)-mu^*(B)|leq
mu^*(Atriangle B)$$
Also the same "triangle inequality" is true for outer Jordan measure.
Definition: We say that $Asubseteq E$ is Lebesgue measurable (Jordan measurable), if for any $varepsilon>0$ $exists
A_{varepsilon}in R(S)$ such that $mu^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$ ($mu_J^*(Atriangle
A_{varepsilon})<varepsilon$). Denote by $M$ and $M_J$ the family of
all subsets of $E$ which are Lebesgue measurable and Jordan
measurable, respectively.
Then by remark 1 it follows that $M_Jsubseteq M$. Also, note that $R(S)subseteq M_Jsubseteq M$. But the below example will show that $M_Jneq M$.
Example: Denote by ${a,b}$ the following intervals: $[a,b], [a,b), (a,b], (a,b)$. Consider the semiring $S={{a,b}:{a,b}subseteq [0,1]}$ with identity $E=[0,1]$. Consider the set $E=mathbb{Q}_{[0,1]}subset [0,1]$.
Then we can show that $mu^*(E)=0$ and $mu^*_J(E)=1$. I can show that $Ein M$.
But how to show that $Enotin M_J$?
I have tried to prove by contradiction and also tries to use remark $2$ but no results. I would be very thankful if anyojne can show the solution?
measure-theory
measure-theory
edited Nov 25 at 16:18
asked Nov 25 at 16:04
ZFR
4,95031338
4,95031338
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Similiarly to how you showed that $mu_J^*(E) = 1$, you should be able to show that every dense subset of $[0,1]$ has outer Jordan measure 1. Now show that for any set $B in R(S)$, the set $E triangle B$ is dense. Hence you cannot find any $B in R(S)$ for which $mu_J^*(E triangle B)$ is small.
To show $E triangle B$ is dense, let $(a,b) subset [0,1]$ be an arbitrary interval. We have to show that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E triangle B$. If $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E setminus B$ we are done. If not, then $B$ contains all the rationals in $(a,b)$. But since $B$ has to look like a finite union of intervals, show that in this case, $B$ contains some irrationals from $(a,b)$ (you fill in the details), so that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $B setminus E$.
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let $Q= mathbb{Q} cap [0,1]$. Suppose $I subset [0,1]$ is an interval, then
$mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$. Similarly, $mu_J^*(I setminus Q)= mu_J^* I$.
If $I_k in S$ are pairwise disjoint, then
$mu_J^* (A cap (I_1 cup cdots cup I_l)) = mu_J^* (A cap I_1) + cdots + mu_J^* ( A cap I_l)$ (for any $A subset [0,1]$).
Note that $[0,1] in S$ so for any $B in S$ we have $B^c in S$.
Suppose $Q subset A_1cupcdots cup A_n$ where $A_i in S$. Without loss of generality, we can assume the $A_i$ are pairwise disjoint. We can also write
$(A_1cupcdots cup A_n)^c = B_1cupcdots cup B_m$, where the $B_j in S$ are
pairwise disjoint.
Hence $Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n) = (Q cap B_1) cup cdots cup (Q cap B_m) cup (A_1 setminus Q) cup cdots cup (A_n setminus Q)$, and so
$mu_J^* (Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n)) = mu_J^* B_1 + cdots + mu_J^* B_m + mu_J^* A_1 + cdots + mu_J^* A_n = 1$.
The reason this works for $mu^*$ is because we can find a countable collection of $A_i in S$ such that $Q subset cup_i A_i$ and $cup_i A_i$ has
arbitrarily small $mu^*$ measure. Hence $Q triangle cup_i A_i = cup_i (A_i setminus Q) subset cup_i A_i$.
Addendum:
To see why $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$: Note that $mu_J^* (Q cap I) le mu_J^* I$ follows by definition. Suppose $Q cap I subset A_1 cup cdots cup A_n$. with $A_i in S$. Then $I setminus (A_1 cup cdots cup A_n)$ must be finite and only the endpoints of the intervals can be missing). Then we can replace
the $A_i$ by $overline{A_i}$ which have the same $m$ measure and $I subset
overline{A_1} cup cdots cup overline{A_n}$. Hence, taking $inf$s we
have $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$.
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Similiarly to how you showed that $mu_J^*(E) = 1$, you should be able to show that every dense subset of $[0,1]$ has outer Jordan measure 1. Now show that for any set $B in R(S)$, the set $E triangle B$ is dense. Hence you cannot find any $B in R(S)$ for which $mu_J^*(E triangle B)$ is small.
To show $E triangle B$ is dense, let $(a,b) subset [0,1]$ be an arbitrary interval. We have to show that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E triangle B$. If $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E setminus B$ we are done. If not, then $B$ contains all the rationals in $(a,b)$. But since $B$ has to look like a finite union of intervals, show that in this case, $B$ contains some irrationals from $(a,b)$ (you fill in the details), so that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $B setminus E$.
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Similiarly to how you showed that $mu_J^*(E) = 1$, you should be able to show that every dense subset of $[0,1]$ has outer Jordan measure 1. Now show that for any set $B in R(S)$, the set $E triangle B$ is dense. Hence you cannot find any $B in R(S)$ for which $mu_J^*(E triangle B)$ is small.
To show $E triangle B$ is dense, let $(a,b) subset [0,1]$ be an arbitrary interval. We have to show that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E triangle B$. If $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E setminus B$ we are done. If not, then $B$ contains all the rationals in $(a,b)$. But since $B$ has to look like a finite union of intervals, show that in this case, $B$ contains some irrationals from $(a,b)$ (you fill in the details), so that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $B setminus E$.
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Similiarly to how you showed that $mu_J^*(E) = 1$, you should be able to show that every dense subset of $[0,1]$ has outer Jordan measure 1. Now show that for any set $B in R(S)$, the set $E triangle B$ is dense. Hence you cannot find any $B in R(S)$ for which $mu_J^*(E triangle B)$ is small.
To show $E triangle B$ is dense, let $(a,b) subset [0,1]$ be an arbitrary interval. We have to show that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E triangle B$. If $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E setminus B$ we are done. If not, then $B$ contains all the rationals in $(a,b)$. But since $B$ has to look like a finite union of intervals, show that in this case, $B$ contains some irrationals from $(a,b)$ (you fill in the details), so that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $B setminus E$.
Similiarly to how you showed that $mu_J^*(E) = 1$, you should be able to show that every dense subset of $[0,1]$ has outer Jordan measure 1. Now show that for any set $B in R(S)$, the set $E triangle B$ is dense. Hence you cannot find any $B in R(S)$ for which $mu_J^*(E triangle B)$ is small.
To show $E triangle B$ is dense, let $(a,b) subset [0,1]$ be an arbitrary interval. We have to show that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E triangle B$. If $(a,b)$ contains a point of $E setminus B$ we are done. If not, then $B$ contains all the rationals in $(a,b)$. But since $B$ has to look like a finite union of intervals, show that in this case, $B$ contains some irrationals from $(a,b)$ (you fill in the details), so that $(a,b)$ contains a point of $B setminus E$.
answered Nov 26 at 20:34
Nate Eldredge
61.7k680167
61.7k680167
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
add a comment |
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
I have realized that my proof of $mu^*_J(E)=1$ was wrong. I have found the following link math.stackexchange.com/questions/1226220/… but I cannot understand why they consider intervals of type $[a,b)$. Because in the definition of outer Jordan measure we can any type of intervals. Could you explain it, please?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 1:14
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
They are probably working with a different definition of Jordan outer measure. Different books define it in different ways. All definitions should turn out to be equivalent but this would have to be proved.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:29
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
I do not have time to write it out. But the idea will be that you are trying to cover $E$ by a finite number of intervals. You can assume without loss of generality that they are all closed intervals, as this does not change their measure. You can also merge any two intervals that overlap, and assume that the intervals are disjoint (this will only decrease the measure). If there is any gap between them, that is an open interval which contains a rational, and so $E$ is not covered. If there is no gap, then the total measure is at least 1.
– Nate Eldredge
Nov 27 at 1:42
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let $Q= mathbb{Q} cap [0,1]$. Suppose $I subset [0,1]$ is an interval, then
$mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$. Similarly, $mu_J^*(I setminus Q)= mu_J^* I$.
If $I_k in S$ are pairwise disjoint, then
$mu_J^* (A cap (I_1 cup cdots cup I_l)) = mu_J^* (A cap I_1) + cdots + mu_J^* ( A cap I_l)$ (for any $A subset [0,1]$).
Note that $[0,1] in S$ so for any $B in S$ we have $B^c in S$.
Suppose $Q subset A_1cupcdots cup A_n$ where $A_i in S$. Without loss of generality, we can assume the $A_i$ are pairwise disjoint. We can also write
$(A_1cupcdots cup A_n)^c = B_1cupcdots cup B_m$, where the $B_j in S$ are
pairwise disjoint.
Hence $Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n) = (Q cap B_1) cup cdots cup (Q cap B_m) cup (A_1 setminus Q) cup cdots cup (A_n setminus Q)$, and so
$mu_J^* (Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n)) = mu_J^* B_1 + cdots + mu_J^* B_m + mu_J^* A_1 + cdots + mu_J^* A_n = 1$.
The reason this works for $mu^*$ is because we can find a countable collection of $A_i in S$ such that $Q subset cup_i A_i$ and $cup_i A_i$ has
arbitrarily small $mu^*$ measure. Hence $Q triangle cup_i A_i = cup_i (A_i setminus Q) subset cup_i A_i$.
Addendum:
To see why $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$: Note that $mu_J^* (Q cap I) le mu_J^* I$ follows by definition. Suppose $Q cap I subset A_1 cup cdots cup A_n$. with $A_i in S$. Then $I setminus (A_1 cup cdots cup A_n)$ must be finite and only the endpoints of the intervals can be missing). Then we can replace
the $A_i$ by $overline{A_i}$ which have the same $m$ measure and $I subset
overline{A_1} cup cdots cup overline{A_n}$. Hence, taking $inf$s we
have $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$.
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Let $Q= mathbb{Q} cap [0,1]$. Suppose $I subset [0,1]$ is an interval, then
$mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$. Similarly, $mu_J^*(I setminus Q)= mu_J^* I$.
If $I_k in S$ are pairwise disjoint, then
$mu_J^* (A cap (I_1 cup cdots cup I_l)) = mu_J^* (A cap I_1) + cdots + mu_J^* ( A cap I_l)$ (for any $A subset [0,1]$).
Note that $[0,1] in S$ so for any $B in S$ we have $B^c in S$.
Suppose $Q subset A_1cupcdots cup A_n$ where $A_i in S$. Without loss of generality, we can assume the $A_i$ are pairwise disjoint. We can also write
$(A_1cupcdots cup A_n)^c = B_1cupcdots cup B_m$, where the $B_j in S$ are
pairwise disjoint.
Hence $Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n) = (Q cap B_1) cup cdots cup (Q cap B_m) cup (A_1 setminus Q) cup cdots cup (A_n setminus Q)$, and so
$mu_J^* (Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n)) = mu_J^* B_1 + cdots + mu_J^* B_m + mu_J^* A_1 + cdots + mu_J^* A_n = 1$.
The reason this works for $mu^*$ is because we can find a countable collection of $A_i in S$ such that $Q subset cup_i A_i$ and $cup_i A_i$ has
arbitrarily small $mu^*$ measure. Hence $Q triangle cup_i A_i = cup_i (A_i setminus Q) subset cup_i A_i$.
Addendum:
To see why $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$: Note that $mu_J^* (Q cap I) le mu_J^* I$ follows by definition. Suppose $Q cap I subset A_1 cup cdots cup A_n$. with $A_i in S$. Then $I setminus (A_1 cup cdots cup A_n)$ must be finite and only the endpoints of the intervals can be missing). Then we can replace
the $A_i$ by $overline{A_i}$ which have the same $m$ measure and $I subset
overline{A_1} cup cdots cup overline{A_n}$. Hence, taking $inf$s we
have $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$.
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Let $Q= mathbb{Q} cap [0,1]$. Suppose $I subset [0,1]$ is an interval, then
$mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$. Similarly, $mu_J^*(I setminus Q)= mu_J^* I$.
If $I_k in S$ are pairwise disjoint, then
$mu_J^* (A cap (I_1 cup cdots cup I_l)) = mu_J^* (A cap I_1) + cdots + mu_J^* ( A cap I_l)$ (for any $A subset [0,1]$).
Note that $[0,1] in S$ so for any $B in S$ we have $B^c in S$.
Suppose $Q subset A_1cupcdots cup A_n$ where $A_i in S$. Without loss of generality, we can assume the $A_i$ are pairwise disjoint. We can also write
$(A_1cupcdots cup A_n)^c = B_1cupcdots cup B_m$, where the $B_j in S$ are
pairwise disjoint.
Hence $Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n) = (Q cap B_1) cup cdots cup (Q cap B_m) cup (A_1 setminus Q) cup cdots cup (A_n setminus Q)$, and so
$mu_J^* (Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n)) = mu_J^* B_1 + cdots + mu_J^* B_m + mu_J^* A_1 + cdots + mu_J^* A_n = 1$.
The reason this works for $mu^*$ is because we can find a countable collection of $A_i in S$ such that $Q subset cup_i A_i$ and $cup_i A_i$ has
arbitrarily small $mu^*$ measure. Hence $Q triangle cup_i A_i = cup_i (A_i setminus Q) subset cup_i A_i$.
Addendum:
To see why $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$: Note that $mu_J^* (Q cap I) le mu_J^* I$ follows by definition. Suppose $Q cap I subset A_1 cup cdots cup A_n$. with $A_i in S$. Then $I setminus (A_1 cup cdots cup A_n)$ must be finite and only the endpoints of the intervals can be missing). Then we can replace
the $A_i$ by $overline{A_i}$ which have the same $m$ measure and $I subset
overline{A_1} cup cdots cup overline{A_n}$. Hence, taking $inf$s we
have $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$.
Let $Q= mathbb{Q} cap [0,1]$. Suppose $I subset [0,1]$ is an interval, then
$mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$. Similarly, $mu_J^*(I setminus Q)= mu_J^* I$.
If $I_k in S$ are pairwise disjoint, then
$mu_J^* (A cap (I_1 cup cdots cup I_l)) = mu_J^* (A cap I_1) + cdots + mu_J^* ( A cap I_l)$ (for any $A subset [0,1]$).
Note that $[0,1] in S$ so for any $B in S$ we have $B^c in S$.
Suppose $Q subset A_1cupcdots cup A_n$ where $A_i in S$. Without loss of generality, we can assume the $A_i$ are pairwise disjoint. We can also write
$(A_1cupcdots cup A_n)^c = B_1cupcdots cup B_m$, where the $B_j in S$ are
pairwise disjoint.
Hence $Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n) = (Q cap B_1) cup cdots cup (Q cap B_m) cup (A_1 setminus Q) cup cdots cup (A_n setminus Q)$, and so
$mu_J^* (Q triangle (A_1cupcdots cup A_n)) = mu_J^* B_1 + cdots + mu_J^* B_m + mu_J^* A_1 + cdots + mu_J^* A_n = 1$.
The reason this works for $mu^*$ is because we can find a countable collection of $A_i in S$ such that $Q subset cup_i A_i$ and $cup_i A_i$ has
arbitrarily small $mu^*$ measure. Hence $Q triangle cup_i A_i = cup_i (A_i setminus Q) subset cup_i A_i$.
Addendum:
To see why $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$: Note that $mu_J^* (Q cap I) le mu_J^* I$ follows by definition. Suppose $Q cap I subset A_1 cup cdots cup A_n$. with $A_i in S$. Then $I setminus (A_1 cup cdots cup A_n)$ must be finite and only the endpoints of the intervals can be missing). Then we can replace
the $A_i$ by $overline{A_i}$ which have the same $m$ measure and $I subset
overline{A_1} cup cdots cup overline{A_n}$. Hence, taking $inf$s we
have $mu_J^* (Q cap I) = mu_J^* I$.
edited Nov 27 at 23:57
answered Nov 27 at 21:59
copper.hat
125k559159
125k559159
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Thanks for reply but I many moments of your reply is not so clear. Firstly, why $mu_J^*(Qcap I)=mu_J^*(I)$?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:39
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
Also notice that my definition of semiring does not require closedness under complement. But I guess that your definition does require!
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:44
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
@ZFR: I thought you were looking at the set $[0,1]$ and since $[0,1] in S$ then for any element $ A in S$ we have that $[0,1] setminus A in S$.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:46
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
But this is true if definition of semiring has complement property, right?
– ZFR
Nov 27 at 23:48
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
@ZFR: I suspect that this is tangential to the proof, but in general, a semiring need not contain the entire space.
– copper.hat
Nov 27 at 23:50
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3013020%2flebesgue-and-jordan-measure-and-some-example%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown