# Lebesgue vs. Counting Measure on $[0,1]$

If $X = [0,1]$ and we let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ and $\nu$ be the counting measure on $[0,1]$, then are the following statements true?

1. The only subset $S \subset [0,1]$ that is of measure zero relative to the counting measure is $\{\}$. Therefore the counting measure is complete on $[0,1]$.

2. The Lebesgue Measure is not complete on $[0,1]$, for there exist pathological subsets of null sets in $[0,1]$ that are nevertheless not Lebesgue measurable.

3. The counting measure is not $\sigma$-finite on $[0,1]$ since no countable number of finite subsets of $[0,1]$ could possibly cover $[0,1]$ (which has uncountably many points).

4. The Lebesgue measure is $\sigma$-finite on $[0,1]$ since $m([0,1]) = 1$ implies $m$ is finite on $X$ and hence $m$ is trivially $\sigma$-finite on $X$ as well.

Are these all correct?

-
What are your thoughts on the topic? –  Asaf Karagila Dec 20 '12 at 21:45
Which do you think are correct? –  Alex Becker Dec 20 '12 at 21:54
I think all of them are correct but wanted to check my understanding. –  user53843 Dec 20 '12 at 21:55
It's nonsense to speak of a measure being complete without declaring what sigma-algebra it's defined on. Lebesgue measure is in fact complete on the Lebesgue sigma-algebra, more or less by definition. –  Chris Eagle Dec 21 '12 at 0:31

However, if I were your teacher, I'd tell you that the argument in 2 is incomplete without giving a specific null set $X\subset[0,1]$ and non-Lebesgue-measurable subset $Y\subset X$. Why not try to find one?