In a measurable partition of an interval, the sum of the measures of the subsets in the partition equals the...
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am working through A User-Friendly Introduction to Lebesgue Measure and Integration, by Gail S. Nelson. On page 67 Nelson defines a measurable partition of the interval $[a,b]$ to be finite collection $ {E_j }_{j=1}^{n}$ of subsets of $[a,b]$ such that: (1) $E_j$ is measurable for each $j$, (2) $bigcup_{j=1}^{n}E_j=[a,b]$, and (3) $m(E_i cap E_j)=0$ whenever $inot=j$. On page 68 she then remarks that given any measurable partition of $[a,b]$, we can convert it into a pairwise disjoint measurable partition like so: set $F_1=E_1$, and $F_j=E_j setminus(bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i)$ for $j=2,3,...n$. I can see why these sets are pairwise disjoint, and I can see how each one is measurable, but I'm unable to prove that (1) their union is $[a,b]$ and (2) that $m(E_j)=m(F_j)$ for each $j=2,3,...n$. I suspect I'm overlooking something simple. Any help is greatly appreciated!
real-analysis lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am working through A User-Friendly Introduction to Lebesgue Measure and Integration, by Gail S. Nelson. On page 67 Nelson defines a measurable partition of the interval $[a,b]$ to be finite collection $ {E_j }_{j=1}^{n}$ of subsets of $[a,b]$ such that: (1) $E_j$ is measurable for each $j$, (2) $bigcup_{j=1}^{n}E_j=[a,b]$, and (3) $m(E_i cap E_j)=0$ whenever $inot=j$. On page 68 she then remarks that given any measurable partition of $[a,b]$, we can convert it into a pairwise disjoint measurable partition like so: set $F_1=E_1$, and $F_j=E_j setminus(bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i)$ for $j=2,3,...n$. I can see why these sets are pairwise disjoint, and I can see how each one is measurable, but I'm unable to prove that (1) their union is $[a,b]$ and (2) that $m(E_j)=m(F_j)$ for each $j=2,3,...n$. I suspect I'm overlooking something simple. Any help is greatly appreciated!
real-analysis lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am working through A User-Friendly Introduction to Lebesgue Measure and Integration, by Gail S. Nelson. On page 67 Nelson defines a measurable partition of the interval $[a,b]$ to be finite collection $ {E_j }_{j=1}^{n}$ of subsets of $[a,b]$ such that: (1) $E_j$ is measurable for each $j$, (2) $bigcup_{j=1}^{n}E_j=[a,b]$, and (3) $m(E_i cap E_j)=0$ whenever $inot=j$. On page 68 she then remarks that given any measurable partition of $[a,b]$, we can convert it into a pairwise disjoint measurable partition like so: set $F_1=E_1$, and $F_j=E_j setminus(bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i)$ for $j=2,3,...n$. I can see why these sets are pairwise disjoint, and I can see how each one is measurable, but I'm unable to prove that (1) their union is $[a,b]$ and (2) that $m(E_j)=m(F_j)$ for each $j=2,3,...n$. I suspect I'm overlooking something simple. Any help is greatly appreciated!
real-analysis lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure
I am working through A User-Friendly Introduction to Lebesgue Measure and Integration, by Gail S. Nelson. On page 67 Nelson defines a measurable partition of the interval $[a,b]$ to be finite collection $ {E_j }_{j=1}^{n}$ of subsets of $[a,b]$ such that: (1) $E_j$ is measurable for each $j$, (2) $bigcup_{j=1}^{n}E_j=[a,b]$, and (3) $m(E_i cap E_j)=0$ whenever $inot=j$. On page 68 she then remarks that given any measurable partition of $[a,b]$, we can convert it into a pairwise disjoint measurable partition like so: set $F_1=E_1$, and $F_j=E_j setminus(bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i)$ for $j=2,3,...n$. I can see why these sets are pairwise disjoint, and I can see how each one is measurable, but I'm unable to prove that (1) their union is $[a,b]$ and (2) that $m(E_j)=m(F_j)$ for each $j=2,3,...n$. I suspect I'm overlooking something simple. Any help is greatly appreciated!
real-analysis lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure
real-analysis lebesgue-integral lebesgue-measure
asked Nov 15 at 22:50
Alex Sanger
624
624
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let's start with $(1)$. Since $F_j subset E_j subset [a,b]$, we only have to see that $[a,b] subset bigcup_j F_j$. Take $x in [a,b]$ and let $s = min{n : x in E_j}$. This is well defined because there exists some $j$ for which $x in E_j$ since the $E_j$s partition $[a,b]$. By construction, $x in E_s$ but necessarily, $x not in E_t$ when $t < s$. Hence,
$$
x in E_s setminus bigcup_{t < s}E_t = E_s setminus bigcup_{t=1}^{s-1}E_t = F_s.
$$
This proves that, in effect, $[a,b]$ is the disjoint union of $F_1, dots, F_n$.
Finally, note that for each $j in [n]$,
$$
F_j = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_j cap E_i
$$
and so since everything here is measurable and of finite measure,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j| - left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright|. tag{$star$}
$$
However, by hypothesis we have that
$$
left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright| leq sum_{i < j}|E_j cap E_i| = 0,
$$
and so plugging that in $(star)$ proves that, in effect,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j|.
$$
The intuition here is that $F_i$ is $E_i$ except removing some of the intersections with other $E_j$, but since all of these are of zero measure by hypothesis, $F_i$ and $E_i$ have the same measure: the sets we have 'cropped' are (measure wise) negligible.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let's start with $(1)$. Since $F_j subset E_j subset [a,b]$, we only have to see that $[a,b] subset bigcup_j F_j$. Take $x in [a,b]$ and let $s = min{n : x in E_j}$. This is well defined because there exists some $j$ for which $x in E_j$ since the $E_j$s partition $[a,b]$. By construction, $x in E_s$ but necessarily, $x not in E_t$ when $t < s$. Hence,
$$
x in E_s setminus bigcup_{t < s}E_t = E_s setminus bigcup_{t=1}^{s-1}E_t = F_s.
$$
This proves that, in effect, $[a,b]$ is the disjoint union of $F_1, dots, F_n$.
Finally, note that for each $j in [n]$,
$$
F_j = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_j cap E_i
$$
and so since everything here is measurable and of finite measure,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j| - left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright|. tag{$star$}
$$
However, by hypothesis we have that
$$
left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright| leq sum_{i < j}|E_j cap E_i| = 0,
$$
and so plugging that in $(star)$ proves that, in effect,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j|.
$$
The intuition here is that $F_i$ is $E_i$ except removing some of the intersections with other $E_j$, but since all of these are of zero measure by hypothesis, $F_i$ and $E_i$ have the same measure: the sets we have 'cropped' are (measure wise) negligible.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let's start with $(1)$. Since $F_j subset E_j subset [a,b]$, we only have to see that $[a,b] subset bigcup_j F_j$. Take $x in [a,b]$ and let $s = min{n : x in E_j}$. This is well defined because there exists some $j$ for which $x in E_j$ since the $E_j$s partition $[a,b]$. By construction, $x in E_s$ but necessarily, $x not in E_t$ when $t < s$. Hence,
$$
x in E_s setminus bigcup_{t < s}E_t = E_s setminus bigcup_{t=1}^{s-1}E_t = F_s.
$$
This proves that, in effect, $[a,b]$ is the disjoint union of $F_1, dots, F_n$.
Finally, note that for each $j in [n]$,
$$
F_j = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_j cap E_i
$$
and so since everything here is measurable and of finite measure,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j| - left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright|. tag{$star$}
$$
However, by hypothesis we have that
$$
left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright| leq sum_{i < j}|E_j cap E_i| = 0,
$$
and so plugging that in $(star)$ proves that, in effect,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j|.
$$
The intuition here is that $F_i$ is $E_i$ except removing some of the intersections with other $E_j$, but since all of these are of zero measure by hypothesis, $F_i$ and $E_i$ have the same measure: the sets we have 'cropped' are (measure wise) negligible.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Let's start with $(1)$. Since $F_j subset E_j subset [a,b]$, we only have to see that $[a,b] subset bigcup_j F_j$. Take $x in [a,b]$ and let $s = min{n : x in E_j}$. This is well defined because there exists some $j$ for which $x in E_j$ since the $E_j$s partition $[a,b]$. By construction, $x in E_s$ but necessarily, $x not in E_t$ when $t < s$. Hence,
$$
x in E_s setminus bigcup_{t < s}E_t = E_s setminus bigcup_{t=1}^{s-1}E_t = F_s.
$$
This proves that, in effect, $[a,b]$ is the disjoint union of $F_1, dots, F_n$.
Finally, note that for each $j in [n]$,
$$
F_j = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_j cap E_i
$$
and so since everything here is measurable and of finite measure,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j| - left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright|. tag{$star$}
$$
However, by hypothesis we have that
$$
left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright| leq sum_{i < j}|E_j cap E_i| = 0,
$$
and so plugging that in $(star)$ proves that, in effect,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j|.
$$
The intuition here is that $F_i$ is $E_i$ except removing some of the intersections with other $E_j$, but since all of these are of zero measure by hypothesis, $F_i$ and $E_i$ have the same measure: the sets we have 'cropped' are (measure wise) negligible.
Let's start with $(1)$. Since $F_j subset E_j subset [a,b]$, we only have to see that $[a,b] subset bigcup_j F_j$. Take $x in [a,b]$ and let $s = min{n : x in E_j}$. This is well defined because there exists some $j$ for which $x in E_j$ since the $E_j$s partition $[a,b]$. By construction, $x in E_s$ but necessarily, $x not in E_t$ when $t < s$. Hence,
$$
x in E_s setminus bigcup_{t < s}E_t = E_s setminus bigcup_{t=1}^{s-1}E_t = F_s.
$$
This proves that, in effect, $[a,b]$ is the disjoint union of $F_1, dots, F_n$.
Finally, note that for each $j in [n]$,
$$
F_j = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_i = E_j setminus bigcup_{i=1}^{j-1}E_j cap E_i
$$
and so since everything here is measurable and of finite measure,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j| - left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright|. tag{$star$}
$$
However, by hypothesis we have that
$$
left|bigcup_{i < j}E_j cap E_iright| leq sum_{i < j}|E_j cap E_i| = 0,
$$
and so plugging that in $(star)$ proves that, in effect,
$$
|F_j| = |E_j|.
$$
The intuition here is that $F_i$ is $E_i$ except removing some of the intersections with other $E_j$, but since all of these are of zero measure by hypothesis, $F_i$ and $E_i$ have the same measure: the sets we have 'cropped' are (measure wise) negligible.
answered Nov 15 at 23:10
Guido A.
6,6221730
6,6221730
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%2f3000444%2fin-a-measurable-partition-of-an-interval-the-sum-of-the-measures-of-the-subsets%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