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.
  1. Let $X$ be any set containing more than one point and $A$ a proper nonempty subset of $X$. Define $S= \{A, X\}$ and the set function $\mu: S \rightarrow [0, \infty]$ by $\mu(A) = 1$ and $\mu(X) = 2$. Show that $\mu: S \rightarrow [0, \infty]$ is a premeasure. Can $\mu$ be extended to a measure? What are the subsets of $X$ that are measurable with respect to the outer measure $\mu^*$ induced by $\mu$?

  2. How would these change if instead we considered the collection $S = \{\emptyset, [0, 1], [0, 3], [2, 3]\}$ of subsets of $R$ and define $\mu(\emptyset)=0$, $\mu([0, 1])=1$, $\mu([0, 3])=1$, $\mu([2, 3])=1$?

Solution 1:

Take $a \in A$, then $\mu^*(\{a\}) = \inf \sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu(E_k)$, $\{a\} \subset\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty E_k$, where $E_k \in S$, then $\mu^*(\{a\}) = 1$, and, similarly, $\mu^*(\{b\}) = 2$ where $b \in X$.

Let $\emptyset \neq C \subset A$. Then, $\mu^*(C) = 1$. Suppose, $D \cap (X\sim A) \neq \emptyset$, then $\mu^*(D)=2$.

Show that $\mu: S \rightarrow [0, \infty]$ is a premeasure.

Using the definition of premeasure:

Let $S$ be a collection of subsets of a set $X$ and $\mu: S \rightarrow [0, \infty]$ a set function. Then, $\mu$ is called a premeasure provided $\mu$ is both finitely additive and countably monotone, and if $\emptyset$ belongs to $S$, then $\mu(\emptyset)=0$.

Should I proceed the same way as in Lebesgue Measure?

Finitely Additive: So, show $\mu(\bigcup_{k=1}^n E_k) \leq \sum_{k=1}^n \mu (E_k)$ (by subadditivity) and then, $\mu(\bigcup_{k=1}^n E_k) \geq \sum_{k=1}^n \mu (E_k)$.

Countably Monotone: $\mu(E) \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu(E_k)$

or should I do something else in general measure?

Lastly: Since $\emptyset \notin S$, this isn't necessary.

Can $\mu$ be extended to a measure?

Is $A$ measurable?

If so, then $\mu^*(B) = \mu^*(B \cap A) + \mu^*(B \cap A^c)$.

Let $B = \{a, b\}$. $\mu^*(B) = 2$ (from before).
$\{a\} \in B \cap A \subset A$, $\mu^*(A \cap B) = 1$.
$\{b\} \in B \cap A^c$, $\mu^*(B \cap A^c) = 2$

$2 \neq 1 + 2$

Is this enough to show that A is not measurable and that $\mu$ cannot be extended to measure?

Which subsets of $X$ are measurable with respect to the outer measure $\mu^*$ induced by $\mu$?

So, we need to find the $\mu^*$ measurable sets.

$E$ is measurable with respect to $\mu^*$ if and only if $\forall B \subset X$.

$$\mu^*(B) = \mu^*(B \cap E) + \mu^*(B \cap E^c)$$

Then, $\emptyset, X$ are measurable because

$$\mu^*(B \cap\emptyset) + \mu^*(B \cap S) = \mu^*(\emptyset) + \mu^*(B) = \mu^*(B)$$

and

$$\mu^*(B \cap X) + \mu^*(B \cap (S \sim B)) = \mu^*(B) + \mu^*(\emptyset) = \mu^*(B)$$

Solution 2: I won't go into anything because it seems like it will basically be the same thing. Are there any major differences that I should know about?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

You have a strange definition of premeasure. Your system of sets is not a ring, not even a semi-ring. Therefore there is not much to prove: Finite additivity is vacuous, because there are no disjoint sets in the system, and similarly for countable subadditivity.

What does it mean for $\mu$ to be extendable to a measure? Does it mean that there exists a measure on the $\sigma$-algebra generated from $S$ which equals $\mu$ when restricted to $S$? If so, then yes: We have $\sigma(S) = \{\emptyset, A, X\setminus A, X\}$ and can set $\mu(\emptyset) = 0$ and $\mu(X \setminus A) = 1$.

$\emptyset$ and the whole base set are always measurable with respect to the outer measure. But the question is whether there exist more measurable sets. You have already proved that $A$ is not measurable. What about other subsets of $X$?

For 2.: No, the steps are the same.

share|improve this answer
    
1. hmm.. then how would I show that it is a premeasure? 3. Ok, should I just play around with subsets of $X$ like $X/A$ or try to prove something generally? –  Jake Casey Feb 19 '13 at 22:27
1  
As I said, for your definition of premeasure, there is nothing to show, really. - For your second question: You should try to prove that no other sets are measurable. –  Thomas Feb 20 '13 at 8:52

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.