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

Let's say you are given a function $\mu:S\rightarrow(0,1]$ and you can additionally assume $$\sum_{s\in S}\mu(s)=1$$ Does this imply that $S$ is finite?

share|cite|improve this question
The range is $(0,1]$, so $\mu(s)\ne 0$ for all $s\in S$ – user1658887 Oct 9 '12 at 9:06
You're right, sry. – martini Oct 9 '12 at 9:11
up vote 3 down vote accepted

No: let $S=\Bbb N$, and let $\mu(n)=2^{-n}$. Then $$\sum_{n\in\Bbb N}\mu(n)=\sum_{n\in\Bbb N}\frac1{2^n}=2\;.$$

You can, however, infer that $S$ is countable, as follows. For each $n\in\Bbb N$ let $$S_n=\{s\in S:\mu(s)\ge 2^{-n}\}\;;$$ then $S=\bigcup_{n\in\Bbb N}S_n$. A countable union of countable sets is countable, so if $S$ were uncountable, then some $S_n$ would be uncountable. But then $$\sum_{k\in S_n}\mu(s)\ge\sum_{s\in S_n}2^{-n}=|S_n|\cdot 2^{-n}\;,$$ which is clearly not finite. Thus, $S$ must be countable.

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.