Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In my self-study, I came across the following interesting little exercise:

Let $A \subseteq [0,1]$ be the set of numbers $x$ between zero and one such that the digit 3 appears before the digit 2 in the decimal expansion of $x$. Prove that $A$ is measurable and find its Lebesgue measure directly.

I am aware of a "sleight-of-hand" probability theory way for computing the Lebesgue measure of this set, and from there one might conclude that $A$ is measurable without being rigorous, but I am looking for a proof that proceeds by doing each of the following with sufficient rigor: verifying the measurable claim FIRST, and then evaluating the Lebesgue measure.

share|cite|improve this question
Do you mean: 1) Before each $2$ in the decimal expansion of $x$, there is a digit $3$ ; 2) There is only one $2$ and one $3$ which precedes the $2$, or 3) something else? – Emilio Ferrucci Jan 27 '12 at 16:51
I find this question very intriguing as I am studying this kind of material as well at the moment. Would it make sense to say, that each of these sets would be an open interval ? I m looking at an occurence of some admissible $x$ and it seems to me that it will necessarily lie in an $\epsilon$ Ball of other admissible $x$ since changing the decimal expansion in the tail will not affect membership of A. – Beltrame Jan 27 '12 at 17:27
In the question statement, I meant that if you start from the decimal point and go to the right, you will see a 3 before you see any 2's. – Vulcan Jan 27 '12 at 18:17
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Here is a sketch of the measurability argument.

For $0\leq x\leq 1$, define the $n$th decimal digit function by setting $d_n(x)$ to be the remainder after dividing $\lfloor 10^n x\rfloor$ by $10$. It is easy to check that $d_n:[0,1]\to\{0,1,\dots,9\}$ is Borel measurable. For any $k\in \{0,1,\dots,9\}$ define $T_k(x)=\inf(n\geq 1: d_n(x)=k)$ where we put $T_k(x)=\infty$ if the set is empty. This is also a Borel measurable function on $[0,1]$. Finally, we see that $A$ is a Borel set by $$A=\left\{ 0\leq x\leq 1: T_3(x)\leq T_2(x)\right\}.$$

You can also look at variations like $$A^\prime=\left\{ 0\leq x\leq 1: T_3(x)< T_2(x)\right\}$$ or $$A^{\prime\prime}=\left\{ 0\leq x\leq 1: T_3(x)< T_2(x)<\infty\right\}$$ if you insist that $x$ has a $3$ but not necessarily a $2$ in its decimal expansion, or that it must have both. Neither of these variations changes the probability, by the way.

share|cite|improve this answer

First, you should specify which decimal expansion to take when there are two possibilities. For example. $.29999\ldots = .3$ will fail or meet your criterion depending on which expansion is taken. Second, you should notice that this actually doesn't matter since the collection of numbers with non-unique decimal expansion has measure zero (being countable) and Lebesgue measure is complete. Thus we might as well let $A$ be the set of numbers with unique decimal expansion in which a 3 appears before a 2.

Now we'll show that the set $A$ is in fact open (hence measurable): split $[0,1]$ into $10$ subintervals of equal length, so a number $x$ is in the $i$th interval ($0\leq i \leq 9$) iff the decimal expansion of $x$ has an $i$ in the tenths place (i.e. $x=.ix_{2}x_{3}\ldots$). Notice that the endpoints of these intervals all have non-unique decimal expansion, so we only care about them as open intervals. The $3$rd interval is a subset of $A$ whereas the $2$nd is disjoint from $A$. Split each of these remaining intervals (that is, all but the $3$rd and $2$nd) into 10 subintervals of equal length. The $3$rd of each of these is in $A$ whereas the $2$nd is disjoint from $A$. Continuing, we see that $A$ is a countable union of these "$3$rd" open intervals and hence is open.

The measure can also be computed from this construction. Since at each stage we add and remove things of equal measure (the "$3$rd" and "$2$nd" intervals, respectively), $\mu A = 1/2$ (where $\mu$ denotes Lebesgue measure).

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.