Let $g(x)=f(x)+x$, where $f(x)$ is the Cantor function from $[0,1]$ to $[0,1]$. We know for the Cantor set $C$, $g(C)$ contains a nonmeasurable set A. Let $B=g^{-1}(A)$, prove that $B$ is Lebesgue measurable but not Borel measurable.

I can show the first one since $B$ is the subset of a null set, which means $B$ is measurable. What about the second one?

  • $\begingroup$ Then why is $B$ not Borel measurable? $\endgroup$ – Chris Gartland Aug 14 '15 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ oh sorry, i have read the question wrong. my bad. just ignore my comment $\endgroup$ – user251257 Aug 14 '15 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ $g$ is continuous and monotonous. thus, the inverse function is continuous too. if $B$ were Borel measurable, what would happen to $A$? $\endgroup$ – user251257 Aug 14 '15 at 19:57


Suppose $B$ is Borel. Let $h=g^{-1}$. Since $g(\mathcal{C})$ has measure 1, then there must exist a nonmeasurable $A\subseteq g(\mathcal{C})$. However, since $h$ es measurable then $h^{-1}(B) = g(B) = A$ would be measurable, which is a contradiction. Therefore $B$ is not Borel.

Full answer

Below I give (what I think is) the complete construction of a measurable, non-Borel set. I first prove two lemmas and, using those, prove that $B$ is Lebesgue measurable (what you already did), but is not Borel.

Let $f$ be the Cantor function that maps $[0,1]$ to $[0,1]$, and let $g(x) = f(x) + x$.

Lemma 1. $g : [0,1]\rightarrow[0,2]$ is a homeomorphism, i.e. $g$ is a continuous bijection with a continuous inverse.

Proof. $g$ is injective and continuous because it is increasing and $f$ is continuous, so $g$ is the sum of continuous functions. Given that $g$ is continuous, $g(0)=0$ and $g(1)=2$, the Intermediate Value Theorem gives us that $g$ is surjective.

Let $h=g^{-1}$. Suppose $U\subseteq [0,1]$ is open. Then $[0,1]\backslash U$ is closed and bounded, hence compact. Since $g$ is continuous, $g([0,1]\backslash U)$ is compact. Now, $$ g([0,1]\backslash U) = h^{-1}([0,1]\backslash U) = [0,2]\backslash h^{-1}(U), $$ so $[0,2]\backslash h^{-1}(U)$ is closed and bounded, hence also compact. Then $h^{-1}(U) \subseteq [0,2]$ is open and so $h$ is continuous, so $g$ is a homeomorphism.

Lemma 2. $g(\mathcal{C})$ has measure 1.

Proof. We know $f$ is constant on any interval in $[0,1]\backslash\mathcal{C}$. Thus for any interval $(a,b)\subseteq [0,1]\backslash\mathcal{C}$ we have that $$ \lambda(g(a),g(b)) = g(b)-g(a) = f(b) + b - f(a) - a = b-a. $$

Let $\{I_{n,k}\}_{k=1}^{2^{n-1}}$ denote the collection of intervals removed at stage $n$ in the construction of $\mathcal{C}$. Then \begin{align*} \lambda([0,2]\backslash\mathcal{C}) &= \lambda(g([0,1]\backslash\mathcal{C})) \\ &= \lambda \left( g \left( \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \bigcup_{k=1}^{2^{n-1}} I_{n,k} \right) \right) = \lambda \left( \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty \bigcup_{k=1}^{2^{n-1}} g(I_{n,k}) \right) \\ &= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=1}^{2^{n-1}} \lambda(g(I_{n,k})) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=1}^{2^{n-1}} \lambda(I_{n,k}) \\ &= 1, \end{align*} since the total measure of intervals removed is 1. Since $[0,2] = g(\mathcal{C}) \uplus ([0,2]\backslash g(\mathcal{C}))$ (i.e. the disjoint union), then $$ 2 = \lambda[0,2] = \lambda(g(\mathcal{C})) + \lambda([0,2]\backslash g(\mathcal{C})) = \lambda(g(\mathcal{C}))+1, $$ hence $\lambda(g(\mathcal{C})) = 1$.

Since $\lambda(g(\mathcal{C}))>0$, there exists a nonmeasurable $A\subseteq g(\mathcal{C})$. Let $B=g^{-1}(A)$. Since $B\subseteq\mathcal{C}$, then $\lambda^*(B)\leq \lambda^*(\mathcal{C})=0$. Thus $B$ has outer measure zero and hence it is measurable, but $g(B)=A$ is nonmeasurable.

We claim $B$ is not Borel. Suppose for contradiction it was. Since $h$ es measurable, then $h^{-1}(B) = g(B) = A$ would be measurable, which is a contradiction. Therefore $B$ is not Borel.

| cite | improve this answer | |

In a general setting, if we are given a continuous $g:X\to Y,$ then $g^{-1}(E)$ is Borel in $X$ for every Borel $E\subset Y.$ It follows that if $g$ is a homeomorphism of $X$ onto $Y,$ then $E$ Borel in $X$ implies $g(E)$ is Borel in $Y.$

In your problem, verify that $g$ is a homeomorphism of $[0,1]$ onto $[0,2].$ If $B$ were Borel, then $g(B) = A$ would be Borel. That's a contradiction, since $A$ is not even Lebesgue measurable.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.