Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Let $K$ be a compact set, $K \subset \mathbb{R}^n \times [a,b]$ and, for each $t \in [a,b]$ define $K_t = \{ x\in \mathbb{R}^n $ ; $(x,t) \in K\}$. If $\forall t \ K_t$ has measure zero in $\mathbb{R}^n$, then $K$ has measure zero in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$(In the sense os Lebesgue.)

Its a problem from an analysis book, and it should be true. (not a true x false question.)

I've been strugling to prove this assertion unsuccessfully. I don't need this result in this generality, one could restrict to the case $K = [0,1]^2$

I'm sorry for the abuse, but I really need an answer for this question. I feel i should use the fact that $[a,b]$ is both connected and compact. but how? I know that the set $\{t \in [a,b] ; K_t \neq \emptyset \}$ is compact in $[a,b]$

The book is Elon Lages lima, Curso de Análise II. A book in portuguese.

Grateful, Henrique.

share|improve this question
    
Something doesn't fit well here, imo: you wrote in the very first line "...s.t., if we define $\,K_t=...\,$ . If..." . So what if we define that?? What is "t" in the definition of $\,K_t\,$? What is the book, page...? –  DonAntonio Jun 30 '12 at 4:44
    
I've edited it so it reads better, @DonAntonio. It's possible I changed the meaning of the question (though I don't think this is likely) so feel free to revert my edit if this is the case. –  Potato Jun 30 '12 at 4:46
    
As for solving the problem itself, could you use Fubini's theorem? If all of the t-slices are 0, surely the measure of set is zero (this follows from integrating along the t-direciton). –  Potato Jun 30 '12 at 4:47
    
The only way I can make sense of all this (perhaps it's only me) is: if $\,K=\prod_iK_i\,\,,\,\text{each} \,\,K_i\in\mathbb R^n\,$ and a nullset, and $\,I\in\mathbb R\,$ is any compact set (for example, aclosed finite interval), then $\,K\times I\in\mathbb R^{n+1}\,$ is a nullset. Is this what the OP meant? –  DonAntonio Jun 30 '12 at 4:51
    
@DonAntonio Yes, basically. Although $K_i \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ –  Henrique Tyrrell Jun 30 '12 at 13:04

1 Answer 1

As defined in Rudin's book Real and complex analysis, $$ \mathcal{L}^{n+1}(K) = \int_a^b \mathcal{L}^n(K_t)\, dt, $$ since $K_t$ is the $t$-section of a measurable set. Your "theorem" follows immediately.

Comment: the solution of your problem depends heavily on the definition of product measures. Rudin defines a product measure by means of sections, and you problem is almost a definition. In $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ there are different constructions of Lebesgue's measure.

share|improve this answer
    
I'm sorry, I can't understand what is it you're integrating. As for measures, it's a book in analysis so that no heavy measure theory should be involved. The only thing defined about lebesgue measure on the text is the notion of a set of measure zero. I don't think you can integrate measures, or anything like that, yet. Also: Fubini's theorem hasn't been proved yet so I guess it shouldn't be used. –  Henrique Tyrrell Jun 30 '12 at 13:42
    
As in the book: A set $X$ is said to have measure zero if $\forall \epsilon$ there is a covering of X by n-dimensional blocks $\{B_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ such that $\sum_{k \in \mathbb{N}} |B_k| \lt \epsilon$ where $|B|$ denotes the volume of the block B and a block in $\mathbb{R^n}$ is an n-fold product of compact intervals in $\mathbb{R}$ –  Henrique Tyrrell Jun 30 '12 at 14:06
    
I'm sorry, but I can't help you immediately. As I said, I learned measure theory from an abstract viewpoint (Lebesgue measure is, for me, a consequence of the Riesz representation theory). You should try to work out the case in which $K \subset \mathbb{R}$, since you can easily draw blocks. –  Siminore Jun 30 '12 at 17:23
    
A possible hint: fix $\epsilon>0$. For each $t$, you can construct a block $\{B_k(t)\}_k$ such that $\sum_{k} |B_k(t)|$ is very small and $K_t \subset \bigcup_k B_k(t)$. Each $B_k(t)$ is a bounded interval, and you may slightly modify it and take it open. But then you should probably be in a position to pick up $t_1,\ldots, t_N$ such that $K$ is covered by $\{B_k(t_1),\ldots,B_k(t_N)\}_k$. I guess this may be converted into a complete proof. –  Siminore Jun 30 '12 at 17:28

Your Answer

 
discard

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.