exact duplicate of Lebesgue measurable but not Borel measurable

BUT! can you please translate Miguel's answer and expand it with a formal proof? I'm totally stuck...

In short: Is there a Lebesgue measurable set that is not Borel measurable?

They are an order of magnitude apart so there should be plenty examples, but all I can find is "add a Lebesgue-zero measure set to a Borel measurable set such that it becomes non-Borel-measurable". But what kind of zero measure set fulfills such a property?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See also this thread $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    May 4 '12 at 17:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TheChaz because nobody would ever see that comment (except for people randomly looking for this...) $\endgroup$
    – example
    May 4 '12 at 17:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would notify Miguel and Jonas... $\endgroup$ May 4 '12 at 17:50
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ Prove: there are $\mathfrak{c} = \#\mathbb{R}$ Borel measurable sets. Every subset of the Cantor set is Lebesgue measurable. There are $2^\mathfrak{c} = \#P(\mathbb{R})$ subsets of the Cantor set. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    May 4 '12 at 17:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also relevant: math.stackexchange.com/questions/70880/… $\endgroup$
    – user83827
    May 4 '12 at 18:52

Let $\phi(x)$ be the Cantor function, which is non-decreasing continuous function on the unit interval $\mathcal{U}_{(0,1)}$. Define $\psi(x) = x + \phi(x)$, which is an increasing continuous function $\psi: [0,1] \to [0,2]$, and hence for every $y \in [0,2]$, there exists a unique $x \in [0,1]$, such that $y = \psi(x)$. Thus $\psi$ and $\psi^{-1}$ maps Borel sets into Borel sets.

Now choose a non Borel subset $S \subseteq \psi(C)$. Its preimage $\psi^{-1}(S)$ must be Lebesgue measurable, as a subset of Cantor set, but it is not Borel measurable, as a topological mapping of a non-Borel subset.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is. ${}{}{}{}$ $\endgroup$
    – leo
    May 5 '12 at 0:36
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ Why is it possible to choose a non Borel subset $S\subset \psi(C)$ ? $C$ is the Cantor set, right ? $\endgroup$
    – Hua
    Mar 13 '17 at 10:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @bridger because $\psi(C)$ has positive measure and every set with positive Lebesgue measure contains a non-measurable set. Since Borel sets are measurable, the non-measurable set contained in $\psi(C)$ must be non-Borel. Now consider its preimage under $\psi$, you get a null set. So, it's Lebesgue measurable but it is not Borel because $\psi$ and $\psi^{-1}$ map Borel sets into Borel sets. $\endgroup$ Feb 10 '19 at 11:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let $(a_n,b_n)$ be an open interval we removed in the Cantor construction (note$[0,1]\setminus C=\cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}(a_n,b_n)$ and also note that $\phi$ is constant on these intervals). Then since $\psi$ is increasing $\mathcal{L}(\phi(a_n,b_n))=\psi(b_n)-\psi(a_n)=b_n+\phi(b_n)-(a_n+\phi(a_n))=b_n-a_n=\mathcal{L}(a_n,b_n)$. Then $\mathcal{L}(\psi([0,1]\setminus C))=\mathcal{L}(\cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\psi((a_n,b_n)))=\sum_n \mathcal{L}(\psi(a_n,b_n))=\sum_n\mathcal{L}((a_n,b_n))=\mathcal{L}([0,1]\setminus C)=1$ But $\mathcal{L}(\psi(C)\cup \psi([0,1]\setminus C))=2$ so $\mathcal{L}(\psi(C))=1$ $\endgroup$
    – edamondo
    Nov 18 at 15:00

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.