hw3 3 (Problema5) PDF

Austin Mohr
Math 704
Homework 3
Problem 1
Show that there exist closed sets A and B with m(A) = m(B) = 0, but m(A + B) > 0:
a. In R, let A = C (the Cantor set), B = C2 .
Proof. Recall that the Cantor set (here, A) contains no open interval, and so has measure 0. Similarly, B
has measure 0. Recall also that an element belongs to A if and only if it has a ternary expansion using only
0s and 2s. Hence, an element belongs to B if and only if it has a ternary expansion using only 0s and 1s.
Now, let x ∈ [0, 1]. We choose a ∈ A and b ∈ B such that x = a + b (and so show that x ∈ A + B) as follows:
If the kth digit of x is 0, specify that the kth digit of a is 0 and the kth digit of b is 0.
Hence, A + B ⊃ [0, 1], and so by problem 4a, we have that A + B is measurable (since A + B contains a
subset of nonzero measure). Furthermore, m(A + B) ≥ m([0, 1]) = 1.
b. In R2 , observe that if A = I × {0} and B = {0} × I (where I = [0, 1]), then A + B = I × I.
Proof. Lines in R2 have measure 0, since, in the limit, a covering a closed cubes will have sides of length 0.
Hence, A and B both have measure 0. Now, consider
I × I = {(a, b) | a, b ∈ [0, 1]}
This is a closed cube with sides of length 1, and is therefore measurable with measure 1.
Problem 2
Prove that there is a continuous function that maps a Lebesgue measurable set to a non-measurable set.
Proof. Consider the function F : C → [0, 1] defined previously. We have already shown that F is continuous
and surjective. Now, let N be the non-measurable set described in the text, and let C 0 denote the preimage
of N under F . Since F is surjective, we know that C 0 is nonempty. Furthermore, C 0 ⊆ C since N ⊆ [0, 1].
Now, consider the function
G : C0 → N
G(x) = F (x) for all x ∈ C 0
(i.e. the function F restricted to the domain C 0 ). G is surjective by definition of C 0 . Furthermore, since
F is continuous, G is continuous. Finally, we see that m(C 0 ) ≤ m(C) = 0, since C 0 ⊆ C. Therefore, G is a
continuous function mapping a Lebesgue measurable set onto a non-measurable set.
Problem 3
Let E be a subset of R with m∗ (E) > 0. Prove that for each 0 < α < 1, there exists an open interval I
so that
m∗ (E ∩ I) ≥ αm∗ (I)
Proof. Choose O ⊃ E such that m∗ (E) ≥ αm∗ (O) (this can always be done). We can write
∞
[
O= Oi , Oi open and disjoint
i=1
1
and hence
E =E∩O
∞
[
=E∩ Oi
i=1
∞
[
= (E ∩ Oi )
i=1
Now, suppose that m∗ (E ∩ Oi ) < αm∗ (Oi ) for all i. Then

∞
[
m∗ (E) = m∗ ( (E ∩ Oi ))
i=1
∞
X
= m∗ (E ∩ Oi ) (by the disjointness of the E ∩ Oi )
i=1
∞
X
<α m∗ (Oi ) (by hypothesis)
i=1
∗
= αm (O) (by disjointness of the Oi )
which is a contradiction with the fact that m∗ (E) ≥ αm∗ (O). Hence, it must be that, for some k,
m∗ (E ∩ Ok ) ≥ αm∗ (Ok ), which proves the claim.
Problem 4
Let N denote the non-measurable subset of I = [0, 1] constructed at the end of Section 3.
a. Prove that if E is a measurable subset of N , then m(E) = 0.
Proof. Let {rk }∞

k=1 be an enumeration of the rationals in the interval [−1, 1] and let Ek = E + rk for each
k. Since E ⊆ N , Ek ⊆ Nk for each k. Since each of the Nk are pairwise disjoint, each of the Ek are pairwise
disjoint. Now, the Lebesgue measure is translation invariant, so m(Ek ) = m(E) for each k. We also have
∞
[ [∞
that Ek ⊆ Nk ⊆ [−1, 2]. It follows that
k=1 k=1
∞
X ∞
[
m(Ek ) = m( Ek ) (by the disjointness of the Ek )
k=1 k=1
∞
[
≤3 (since Ek ⊆ [−1, 2])
k=1
But m(Ek ) = m(E) for each k. Hence

∞
X
3≥ m(Ek )
k=1
X∞
= m(E)
k=1
which implies that m(E) = 0.

b. If G is a subset of R with m∗ (G) > 0, prove that a subset of G is non-measurable.
2
Proof. Since m(G) > 0, we can find for any > 0 a closed interval [a, b] ⊆ G with m(G \ [a, b]) ≤ . Now,
consider the set G − a (G translated by −a units). Since the Lebesgue measure is translation invariant,
m(G − a) = m(G). Furthermore, the interval [0, b − a] ⊆ G − a. Let A = [0, b − a] ∩ N . Observe that A ⊆ G.
Suppose A is measurable. Since A ⊆ N , m(A) = 0 by part (a). It follows that
m(G) = m(G − a)
= m((G − a) \ A) + m(A)
≤+0
=
Since can be chosen arbitrarily small, we conclude that m(G) = 0, which is a contradiction. Hence, it must
be that A is non-measurable.

hw3 3 (Problema5) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

hw3 3 (Problema5) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

hw3 3 (Problema5) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austin Mohr

a. In R, let A = C (the Cantor set), B = C2 .

Now, suppose that m∗ (E ∩ Oi ) < αm∗ (Oi ) for all i. Then

a. Prove that if E is a measurable subset of N , then m(E) = 0.

Proof. Let {rk }∞

But m(Ek ) = m(E) for each k. Hence

which implies that m(E) = 0.

You might also like