Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

Let $ X= \mathbb N$ , $\alpha = \mathcal{P} (\mathbb N)$, and $u_n =\frac{1}{n+1}$ for every $n \in \mathbb N$.

Define the function $\mu$ on $\alpha$ by $\mu(A)=\sum\limits_{n \in A} u_n$ for every $A \in \alpha$.

  1. (a) Prove that $ \mu $ is a measure on $ \alpha$.

    (b) Is $ \mu $ $ \sigma$-finite ? Is $ \mu$ finite?

  2. (a) Find the image of $\mu$.

    (b) Is $ \mu $ one-to-one?

    (c) If $A_k = \{ B \subset \mathbb N : \mu(B) = k \}$ with $k \in \mathbb R ^{+}$, find the number of elements of $ A_k$.

I need help only for 2 (c). I have done the others.

Thank's in advance!

Edit: This was a problem in a examination on measure theory.

share|cite|improve this question
I think your definition of $u_n$ is wrong. You probably want $u_n = \frac{1}{n+1}$. – Quinn Culver May 17 '12 at 18:50
@QuinnCulver: But that I have define as $ u_n$. – passenger May 17 '12 at 18:56
I think that every $A_k$ for $k>0$ is infinite. Is this what you want proof, or do you need the exact cardinality of $A_k$? – Martin Sleziak May 17 '12 at 19:05
@MartinSleziak: Can you explain first why every $A_k$ is infinite? – passenger May 17 '12 at 19:07
I hope the original question was not a verbatim of your examination text. – Did May 17 '12 at 20:19
up vote 3 down vote accepted

For any $k>0$, $A_k$ has cardinality $\mathfrak{c} = 2^{\aleph_0}$ : let $N_0$ be the set of even integers and $N_1$ be the set of odd integers. Since $\sum_{n \in N_0} u_n = \sum_{n \in N_1} u_n = \infty$, it is again the case that you can obtain any real as a measure of a subset of $N_0$ or as a subset of $N_1$ : $\mu( \mathcal P (N_0)) = \mu( \mathcal P (N_1)) = [0, + \infty]$.

Let $0<l<k$, and choose a subset $X_0$ of $N_0$ such that $\mu(X_0) = l$, and a subset $X_1$ of $N_1$ such that $\mu(X_1) = k-l$. Then, $\mu(X_0 \cup X_1) = l+(k-l) = k$. Since for any fixed value of $k$ we can choose $2^{\aleph_0}$ many values for $l$, we obtain $2^{\aleph_0}$ many distincts subsets $X$ of $\mathbb N$ such that $\mu(X)=k$.

Meanwhile, $A_k$ is at most of cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$ since it is a subset of $\mathcal P(\mathbb N)$. Thus $A_k$ has cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice clear solution mercio! Thank you very much! – passenger May 17 '12 at 19:47

I suppose that in the preceding part of the exercise you have shown that image of $\mu$ is $[0,\infty)$, i.e. every non-negative real number can be be obtained as $\mu(A)$ for some set $A$.

More generally, for arbitrary decreasing sequence $u_n$ we have, that every positive number can be obtained as $\sum_{n\in A}u_n$ whenever $\sum_{k=1}^\infty u_k=\infty$ and $\lim\limits_{k\to\infty} u_k=0$, see e.g. here. (The claim given in that answer is more general than this.) You have shown this for $u_n=\frac1{n+1}$ in the preceding part of this exercise, it should be easy to check that the same argument works for arbitrary such sequence.

It is obvious that $A_0=\{\emptyset\}$. Now we can show that if $x>0$ can be obtained as $\mu(A)=x$, then there is infinitely many such sets, i.e. each $A_x$ is infinite.

Indeed, let $x$ has a representation $\sum_{n\in A} u_n$ and $n_0\in A$. Then we can simply omit $u_{n_0}$ from the sequence and apply the same observation to the new sequence. Again, $x$ has some representation, but it has to be a different one, since it does not contain $n_0$.

We can continue like this - we choose some $n_1$, then we obtain a new representation which does not contains $n_0$, $n_1$ etc. We will get infinitely many sets belonging to $A_x$.

However, I don't see what cardinality will the set $A_x$ have. (Aside from obvious estimate that it is between $\aleph_0$ and $\mathfrak c=2^{\aleph_0}$.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Here: "Now we can show that if x>0 can be obtained as μ(A)=x, then there is infinitely many such sets, i.e. each Ax is infinite." what did you take as A ? – passenger May 17 '12 at 19:26
I took arbitrary $A$ with this property. At least one $A$ must exist for each $x$ in the range of $\mu$. (You described the range in the part 2(a).) – Martin Sleziak May 17 '12 at 19:29
Why $ A_k $ is infinte? I can't still see it. – passenger May 17 '12 at 19:33
The basic observation is that for arbitrary $N$ you can find a set $A\in A_x$ such that $A\subseteq\{N,N+1,N+2,\ldots\}$. In this way, you can alway get new sets. (This is slightly different from what I wrote in the answer, but the basic idea is the same.) – Martin Sleziak May 17 '12 at 19:37
What do you mean here: "$A\subseteq\{N,N+1,N+2,\ldots\}$" ? – passenger May 17 '12 at 19:42

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.