I have a quite dumb question. Is the empty set measurable? say with respect to the standard measure.

I totally acknowledge intuitive explanations. Thanks,

  • $\begingroup$ To be honest, I find the result quite counter-intuitive. For example, if $S$ and $T$ are distinct measurable non-empty sets of real numbers with $S$ a subset of $T$, then we can say that $\mu(S) < \mu(T)$. This is intuitive - if you have a line and then you cut a bit off then the resulting line is shorter. However if you remove the non-empty restriction then this breaks down - let $S = \emptyset$ and $T = \{0\}$, then $S$ is a distinct subset of $T$ but $\mu(S) = \mu(T)$. However, despite my intuition, the empty set is indeed considered to be measurable, as answers have indicated. $\endgroup$
    – Kidburla
    May 11 '15 at 17:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Kidburla The inequality you wrote down does not hold whenever $S$ is a subset of $T$, and both are non-empty. For example, in the Lebesgue ("length") measure, both the closed interval $[0,1]$ and its subset, the open interval $]0,1[$, have measure $1$. Another example would be the sets $\{0\}\subset\{0,1\}$, both with measure $0$. Intuitively, this is because you removed a set "too small" to change the length. $\endgroup$
    – Andrea
    May 11 '15 at 19:13


Given a set $X$, to avoid paradoxes such as the Banach Tarski paradox , there is a need to define which subsets are measurable (and as a consequence which ones aren't), and then define a function $\mu$, called a measure, from this set $\Sigma$ of subsets of $X$ to the non-negative reals. How to choose?

You want the measure to mirror our intuition of volume, or length, generalising it to higher dimensions and/or to non-metric spaces. In particular, you want the whole set $X$ to have a measure, so that $X \in \Sigma$. Another property you want is that if a subset $A\in \Sigma$ has a measure, you want its complement $X/A$ to have measure $\mu(X)-\mu(A)$. These two properties are necessary (but not sufficient) for $(X,\Sigma,\mu)$ to be a measure space, i.e. as space that generalises our intuition of volume without logical inconsistencies.


For any measure space $(X,\Sigma,\mu)$, the empty set $X / X \equiv \emptyset$ needs to be a measurable set, and its measure is invariably $\mu(X)-\mu(X) = 0$.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Good explanation/intuition, but just in case this causes any confusion, it might be worth clarifying that your argument only applies to finite measure spaces (ie, with $\mu(X) < \infty$). It is also possible to have $\mu: \Sigma \to \mathbb{R}^{+}_0 \cup \{ \infty \}$. The argument can easily be rectified by taking some $A \subset X$ with $\mu(A)$ finite, then $\mu(A) + \mu(\emptyset) = \mu(A \cup \emptyset) = \mu(A)$ [the first equality comes as $A \cup \emptyset = \emptyset$]. The result $\mu(\emptyset) = 0$ follows by subtracting $\mu(A)$ from both sides - but this requires $\mu(A)$ finite. $\endgroup$
    – David E
    May 11 '15 at 15:11

Measures are defined on $\sigma$-algebras (containing the measurable sets) and any $\sigma$-algebra contains the empty set by definition.


Any $\sigma$-algebra contains $\emptyset$ and for any measure $\mu$ on the $\sigma$-algebra, $\mu(\emptyset) = 0$.


Assume there is a set $A$: $\mu(A)<\infty$. Let $\mu(A)=k$. Then $\begin{equation}\mu(\emptyset)=\mu(A-A)=\mu(A)-\mu(A)=k-k=0.\end{equation}$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.