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.

In reading Knapp's Basic Real Analysis, in chapter 5 section 2, I came across something which I just cannot understand. If $f$ and $g$ are measurable functions, then he says that $$(f+g)^{-1}(c,+\infty)=\bigcup_{r\in \mathbb{Q}}f^{-1}(c+r,+\infty]\cap g^{-1}(-r,+\infty].$$ I spent a lot of time thinking and working with how he derived this, or even how the conclusion holds, but I cannot. So, if someone could help me figure out exactly how this is true, and how this "magical" equation was derived, then I would be very appreciative.

share|improve this question
    
You should say $r\in\mathbb{Q}$. Does this help? –  ncmathsadist Jan 28 '13 at 0:17
    
That was just a typo, but it still doesn't address my lack of understanding unfortunately. –  Jebruho Jan 28 '13 at 0:19
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Suppose that $x\in(f+g)^{-1}\big[(c,\to)\big]$; then $(f+g)(x)=f(x)+g(x)>c$. Let $s=f(x)-c$; $f(x)=c+s$, and therefore $g(x)>-s$. We’d like to find a rational $r$ such that $f(x)>c+r$ and $g(x)>-r$, since we would then have $$x\in f^{-1}\big[(c+r,\to)\big]\cap g^{-1}\big[(-r,\to)\big]\;.\tag{1}$$ Since $f(x)=c+s$, this implies that we want $c+s>c+r$, or $r<s$. We also need to have $g(x)>-r$. In short, we need a rational number $r$ such that $-s<-r<g(x)$, and since $-s<g(x)$ and the rationals are dense in $\Bbb R$, there must be one.

We’ve now shown that for each $x\in(f+g)^{-1}\big[(c,\to)\big]$ there is an $r\in\Bbb Q$ such that $(1)$ holds, and it follows at once that

$$(f+g)^{-1}\big[(c,\to)\big]\subseteq\bigcup_{r\in\Bbb Q}\left(f^{-1}\big[(c+r,\to)\big]\cup g^{-1}\big[(-r,\to)\big]\right)\;.$$

The opposite inclusion is easier. If

$$x\in\bigcup_{r\in\Bbb Q}\left(f^{-1}\big[(c+r,\to)\big]\cup g^{-1}\big[(-r,\to)\big]\right)\;,$$, there is an $r\in\Bbb Q$ such that $(1)$ holds. It follows that $f(x)>c+r$ and $g(x)>-r$ and hence that $(f+g)(x)=f(x)+g(x)>c+r-r=c$, i.e., that $x\in(f+g)^{-1}\big[(c,\to)\big]$.

share|improve this answer
    
Great answer! Thank you. –  Jebruho Jan 28 '13 at 0:55
    
@Jebruho: You’re welcome (and thank you). –  Brian M. Scott Jan 28 '13 at 0:57
add comment

It might help to consider the following equivalent statement: for any $x$, we have $f(x) +g(x) > c$ iff there exists $r \in \mathbb{Q}$ such that $f(x) > c+r$ and $g(x) > -r$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Suppose that $f(x) + g(x) < c$. Then since $f(x) < c - g(x)$, you can choose a rational number so that $f(x) < r < c - g(x)$. You have $x\in[f < r]$. Now $c - g(x) > r$, so $g(x) < c - r$; therefore $x \in [g < c - r]$. We have just shown that $$[f + g < c] = \bigcup_{r\in \mathbb{Q} }[f < r]\cap [ g < c - r].$$

The reverse inequality is easier.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.