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

Consider a point in a line, it has length zero . Consider a line in a plane , it has area zero . Consider a Plane in $\mathbb R^3$ it has $0$ volume .

My question is , is there a measure theoretic way of extracting these ideas ? How can i link these ideas with Measure theory ?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Given $Y$ is a proper subspace of $X$ ($\dim Y < k$), then $m(Y) = 0$. It's intuitively clear, but it's not trivial!!

It is true for $R^k$, because the Lebesgue measure is outer-regular (ie: for every $A$ measurable, $m(A) = \inf\{m(E): A\subseteq E,\, E\text{ open}\}$.

$Y$ is a proper subspace of $X$, by linear transformation, you can move it to another subspace $E$ with the last coordinate is $0$. $E = \{(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_k): x_k =0\}$, and it is sufficient to show $m(E) = 0$. (" the sufficient part here " is actually not trivial: there is theorem in Rudin said that, if you have a linear transformation $T$, for any set $E$, $m(T(E)) = \lambda m(E)$, $\lambda$ is constant, and I need this theorem to use this linear transformation.)

The set of $S = \{(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_{k-1},0)\}$, with every $x_i$ rational, is countable, and can be listed as $y_1,y_2,y_3,\ldots$

For each point $y_i = (x_1,x_2,...x_{k-1},0)$, we put it inside a box $W_i$ $$W_i = (x_1-1/2,x_1+1/2) \times (x_2-1/2,x_2+1/2)\times \ldots\times (x_{k-1}-1/2,x_{k-1}+1/2) \times(-\epsilon/2^{i+1},\epsilon/2^{i+1})$$

The volume/measure of $W_i$ is $\epsilon/2^i$.

$$E = \bigcup W_i \implies m(E) \le \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty m(W_i) = \epsilon \implies m(E) =0.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
by the way, this one is problem 2.16 in Rudin, if you want more awesome problems!! – Long Mai May 16 '12 at 11:00
For an implication, I recommend using "\Rightarrow" ($\Rightarrow$) or "\Longrightarrow" ($\Longrightarrow$) instead of "=>". – Quinn Culver May 16 '12 at 13:21
@QuinnCulver, Thank you very much for your suggestion. I didn't know about \rightarrow before. I feel bad about => either, as it looks confused with <= or =. – Long Mai May 16 '12 at 13:43
Even better \implies $\implies$, \impliedby $\impliedby$ and \iff $\iff$. – leo May 16 '12 at 16:36
thank you leo :D – Long Mai May 16 '12 at 20:25

For every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ you can consider the Lebesgue measure $m_{n}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$: it assigns the intuitive volume as one imagines to a (measurable) subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. In particular, in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ every $n-1$ "dimensional" object has the corresponding $m_{n}$ Lebesgue measure of zero. E.g. a point has zero $m_{1}$-measure, a line has zero $m_{2}$-measure, a plane has zero $m_{3}$-measure, etc.

Examples of measures which are less coarse and take these "lower dimensional" objects into account very nicely are Hausdorff measures.

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.