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 $(X,\beta,\mu)$ be a measure space. Given $E_1 \subset E_2 \subset ...$, a sequence of sets in $\beta$, obtain $\mu \left( \bigcup _{i=1}^{\infty} E_i \right)$ rigorously.

Isn't this equal to the limit of $\mu (E_i)$ as $i \rightarrow \infty$?

share|cite|improve this question
First, is this really an arbitrary union, or just a countable one? Second: sure, but it looks like the crux of this one is in the "rigorously," not in making the right guess. At the very least we'd better say something about the existence of the limit. – Kevin Carlson Aug 5 '12 at 0:58
It is a countable union. I had another thing on my mind when I typed `arbitrary'. – lucas Aug 5 '12 at 1:21
up vote 2 down vote accepted


The hint is to use countable additivity and the disjoint collection of sets $(E_{i + 1} - E_i)_{i = 1}^\infty$.

share|cite|improve this answer

For any given positive integer $N$, $E_N\subseteq \bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_i$. Monotonicity implies $\mu(E_N)\leq \mu(\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_i)$. Taking the limit, we will have $\lim_{j\to\infty}\mu(E_j)\leq \mu(\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_j)$. Thus, $$\lim_{j\to\infty}\mu(E_j)\leq \mu(\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_j).$$

For any given positive integer $N$,$\bigcup_{j=1}^{N}E_j= E_N$. We have $\mu(\bigcup_{j=1}^{N}E_j)=\mu(E_N)$ due to monotonicity. Take the limit, we get $\mu(\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_j)\leq \lim_{j\to\infty}\mu(E_j)$. Thus, $$\mu(\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty}E_j)\leq \lim_{j\to\infty}\mu(E_j).$$

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.