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.

The problem:

Let $X = [0,1]$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be the Borel subsets of $X$. Let $\mu:\mathcal{B}\to[0,1]$ be a probability measure on $X$. Suppose that $\mu$ is regular, i.e., for all $B\in\mathcal{B}$ we have $$\mu(B) = \inf\{\mu(O) | B\subset O, O\ \operatorname{is\ open}\}$$ and $$\mu(B) = \sup\{\mu(K) | K\subset B, K\ \operatorname{is\ compact}\}.$$

Let $K = \cap_\alpha K_\alpha$ where $\{K_\alpha\}_\alpha$ is the collection of all compact subsets of $X$ with $\mu(K_\alpha) = 1$. Show that for every open set $O\subset X$ with $K\subset O$ there is $\alpha$ such that $K\subset K_\alpha\subset O$.

Now we know that each $K_\alpha$ satisfies $K\subset K_\alpha$, by definition, so all we need to show is that for any open set $O\subset X$ with $K\subset O$, there exists some $\alpha$ such that $K_\alpha \subset O$.

It is fairly easy to show that there is some compact set $J$ satisfying $$ K\subset J\subset O,$$ But what I'm not seeing is how we may conclude $\mu(J) = 1$.

I should add, part (ii) of this problem asks us to show $\mu(K) = 1$, which is fairly easy from the part above, but it means for this part I cannot use it combined with monotonicity of the measure to show $\mu(J) = 1$, which is about the only idea I've come up with.

Anyone have a hint at why $J$ must have measure 1, simply because it contains $K$, before knowing $K$ has measure 1?

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
Just for your information: The hypotheses of this exercise are redundant. A Borel probability measure on $[0,1]$ is automatically inner and outer regular in the sense described. –  t.b. Oct 23 '11 at 1:28
    
The title is wrong... you are intersecting only the compact sets! –  André Caldas Oct 23 '11 at 1:31
    
There is such a $J$!!! Just take $J = K$!! –  André Caldas Oct 23 '11 at 1:55
    
@t.b.: Fair enough, though we haven't discussed a measure being regular in class, so I'm guessing he just put it there for our benefit. –  Alex Oct 23 '11 at 2:03
    
@AndréCaldas: True, I'll fix the title. Also, while $K$ would work, we aren't expected to prove $\mu(K) = 1$ until the second part of the problem, so I'm guessing the intention was for us to come up with an argument that does not involve that :) –  Alex Oct 23 '11 at 2:06
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

If $O$ is an open set containing $K$, then the collection of compact sets $\{O^c\cap K_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha}$ has empty intersection (here $^c$ denotes complement). Now use the finite intersection property of compact sets.

Since you put the homework tag I tried to be a little vague, but let me know if anything is unclear and I'll give detail.

share|improve this answer
    
Nice! So, there is no need to use measure theoretic arguments!! :-) –  André Caldas Oct 23 '11 at 1:27
    
@André Thanks! Well, I guess in order to conclude you do need to know that the union of finitely many sets of measure zero has measure zero. :) –  Nick Strehlke Oct 23 '11 at 1:33
    
You have a set $K$ which is the intersection of compact sets $K_\alpha$. If $K \subset O$, for an open $O$, then there is a $\alpha$ such that $K \subset K_\alpha \subset O$. No need to use measure... as you demonstrated! But if you want to show that $\mu(K) = 1$, then you need the fact that the union of countable many sets of measure zero has measure zero. –  André Caldas Oct 23 '11 at 1:53
    
Actually, the "part (i)" is topology, while "part (ii)" is measure theory. –  André Caldas Oct 23 '11 at 1:55
    
@André Hmmm, well here's what I had in mind: The finite intersection argument shows that there exist finitely many indices $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ such that $K_{\alpha_1}\cap\cdots\cap K_{\alpha_n}\cap O^c=\varnothing$. Using the fact the $\mu(K_{\alpha_1}^c\cup\cdots\cup K_{\alpha_n}^c)=0$, we get $K_{\alpha_1}\cap\cdots\cap K_{\alpha_n}=K_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha$. This gives $K\subset K_{\alpha}\subset O$. To show that $\mu(K)=1$, I would then use the regularity of $\mu$ and the arbitrariness of $O$. (So much for vagueness!:)) –  Nick Strehlke Oct 23 '11 at 2:23
show 5 more comments

Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a countable base for the topology of $[0,1]$. Then, for each $K_\alpha$, there is a $\mathcal{U}_\alpha \subset \mathcal{U}$ such that $K_\alpha^c = \bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{U}_\alpha} U$. It is clear that every set in $\mathcal{U}_\alpha$ has measure $0$.

Now, let $\mathcal{U}_K = \bigcup_\alpha \mathcal{U}_\alpha \subset \mathcal{U}$. Then, $$ K^c = \bigcup_{U \in \mathcal{U}_K} U $$ is a countable union of sets with measure $0$. Therefore, $\mu(K) = 1$. In particular, $K = K_\alpha$ for some $\alpha$.

Notice that this $K$ is exactly the support for $\mu$!!

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.