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

A common example of a semiring of sets is the family of half open interals $(a,b]\subseteq\mathbb{R}$. Also, the premeasure $\rho((a,b])=b-a$ is well known to extend to a measure on a $\sigma$-algebra.

With a little tinkering, I believe the "mirror images" across the origin of these intervals also form a semiring. That is, the sets of form $[-b,-a)\cup(a,b]$ for $0<a<b$ are also a semiring. Say $I_{a,b}=[-b,-a)\cup(a,b]$. If I put nearly the same premeasure $\rho(I_{a,b})=b-a$ on this semiring, then I think that $\rho$ can be extended to a measure on a $\sigma$-algebra by taking the measure which sends a set $A$ to $\mu(A)/2$ for the usual Lebesgue measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}$. (I hope this is correct?)

Is there a way to tell if a closed interval $[a,b]$ is $\rho^*$ measurable? I'm interested in seeing maybe an example first to figure this out. Take an interval $[1,2]$ for example. I know that $[1,2]$ is $\rho^*$ measurable if for any $I\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, then $$\rho^*(I)=\rho^*(I\cap[1,2])+\rho^*(I\setminus[1,2]).$$

My feeling is that $[1,2]$ is $\rho^*$ measurable just by testing it with a few subsets $I$ of the real line. Is there a way to prove or disprove whether this is true?

Thank you.

share|cite|improve this question
I guess you can take the measure which assigns to a set $A$ the value $\mu(A)/2$, where $\mu$ is the usual Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb R$. Am I missing something? – Martin Sleziak Nov 8 '11 at 19:37
@MartinSleziak Maybe it is that simple, I'll run with this and see how it goes, thanks. – Anastasia Nov 9 '11 at 2:50
I am no mercenary... but I do remember there was a bounty here! I do not remember from whom... :-( – André Caldas Nov 24 '11 at 2:41
up vote 0 down vote accepted

It seems to me that you are basically talking about the Lebesgue measure on $$ \mathbb{R}^+ = \{x \in \mathbb{R} | x > 0\}. $$

Notice that the $\sigma$-algebra generated by these "symmetric sets" is fully composed of "symmetric sets"!! I would say that the $\rho^*$-measurable sets are simply the sets of the form $$ -A \cup A \cup N, $$ where $A$ is a Borel set of $\mathbb{R}^*$ and $N$ is a Lebesgue null set. This, because the Lebesgue null sets are exactly the same as $\rho^*$ null sets.

So, the $\rho^*$-measurable closed intervals would be of the form $[-a,a]$.

The measure $\rho$ is the same as $\frac{\mu}{2}$ where $\rho$ is defined. But the Lebesgue measurable sets is a much wider family.

As requested, let's show that $[1,2]$ is not $\rho^*$-measurable as per the provided definition. To make things simpler, let's prove that $(1,2]$ is not $\rho^*$-measurable.

Take $I = [-2,-1) \cup(1,2]$. Notice that $I$ is the smaller set in the generating semiring such that $(1,2] \subset I$. Therefore, $$ \rho^*((1,2]) = \rho^*(I) = 1. $$ Likewise, $$ \rho^*([-2,-1)) = \rho^*(I) = 1. $$ That is, $$ \rho^*(I) \neq \rho^*(I \cap (1,2]) + \rho^*(I \setminus (1,2]). $$

If you really want to prove for $[1,2]$, just notice that $\{1\}$ has null outer measure and is therefore $\rho^*$-measurable. If $[1,2]$ was $\rho^*$-measurable, then $[1,2] \setminus \{1\} = (1,2]$ would also be $\rho^*$-measurable. But we already know that it is not!

Edit: Added proof that $[1,2]$ is not $\rho^*$-measurable.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! So I gather that $[1,2]$ is not $\rho^*$-measurable? Do you mind expanding on how to use the definition of $\rho^*$-measurable to conclude that $[1,2]$ is not measurable? I don't follow your conclusions as quickly. – Anastasia Nov 10 '11 at 19:23
@Anastasia: Notice that for the outer measure, $\rho^*([1,2]) = \rho^*([-2,-1]\cup[1,2]) = 1$ (why?), while for the inner measure, $\rho_*([1,2]) = \rho_*(\emptyset) = 0$ (why?). – André Caldas Nov 11 '11 at 4:10
@Anastasia: Or, take $I = [-2,-1]\cup [1,2]$. Then, $I \cap [1,2] = [1,2]$ and $I \setminus [1,2] = [-2,-1]$. As in my preview comment, $\rho^*([1,2]) + \rho^*([-2,-1]) = \rho^*(I) + \rho^*(I) = 2 \rho^*(I) \neq \rho^*(I)$. Notice that $I$ is the smaller set in your semi-ring that contains $[1,2]$. It is also the smaller that contains $[-2,-1]$. – André Caldas Nov 11 '11 at 4:15
Thank you Andre. – Anastasia Nov 13 '11 at 4:31
By the way, if you have a measure $\mu$ on $\Omega$ and $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ are disjoint sets in bijection with $\Omega$, you could have done what you did in $\Omega_1 \cup \Omega_2$! What would be the measurable sets then? Actually, if $S$ is any non-empty set, you could have done what you did in $S \times \Omega$. The previews case is just the case for $S = \{1,2\}$. If $S$ is not countable, what would be the "null sets" in $S \times \Omega$? – André Caldas Nov 14 '11 at 13:01

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.