1
$\begingroup$

Hi everyone: Is there a set $E$ in $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ for $m\geq2$ and with respect to the (regular) Euclidean topology such that: (1) The interior of $E$ is empty (2) The Lebesgue measure of $E$ is positive (3) $E$ is connected? Thanks for your help.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Let $K\subset\mathbb R$ be a fat cantor set (which has positive measure, but empty interior). Consider $(K\times I)\cup(I\times\{0\})\subset\mathbb R^2$, where $I$ is the unit interval. This is connected (because of $I\times\{0\}$), and has the same Lebesgue measure as $K$. It also has empty interior because $K$ has empty interior. To get that the result holds in $\mathbb R^n$ for all $n>1$, simply cross this set with the unit interval $n-2$ more times.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ But why this set has empty interior? $\endgroup$ – M. Rahmat Mar 27 '16 at 4:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If it contained any open set, projection in the first coordinate would give an open subset of $\mathbb R$ contained in $K$, which is a contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Alex S Mar 27 '16 at 4:24
4
$\begingroup$

For $m=1$ the answer is no, the connected sets are intervals and if the Lebesgue measure is non zero then the interval must contain an open set.

For $m>1$, let $A= \{ x | x_k \in \mathbb{Q}^c \text{ for some } k \}$. Then $A$ is connected, has empty interior and the complement has measure zero.

Following Nate's suggestion:

To see why $A$ is connected, in fact path connected, pick two points $x,y \in A$.

Suppose $x_i$ is irrational. Suppose $y_i$ is irrational and let $j$ be another index and let $\alpha$ be irrational. Consider the path, where only one component is changed at a time, $x \to (...,x_i,...,\alpha,...) \to (...,y_i,...,\alpha,...) \to y$. The $\alpha$ is in the $j$th position.

Now suppose $y_i$ is rational and $y_j$ is irrational. As above, consider the path $x \to (...,x_i,...,y_j,...) \to y$.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ You might like to explain why $A$ is connected. Although the trick is pretty well known, it may not be obvious to someone who hasn't seen it. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Mar 27 '16 at 3:47
  • $\begingroup$ You presumably mean "for some $k$" rather than "for some i"? $\endgroup$ – ForgotALot Mar 27 '16 at 3:49
  • $\begingroup$ @ForgotALot: Thanks. $\endgroup$ – copper.hat Mar 27 '16 at 3:51
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge: Good suggestion, I'm not sure my explanation is entirely clear, but it should give the idea. $\endgroup$ – copper.hat Mar 27 '16 at 4:06
  • $\begingroup$ Another way of writing $A$ is $A=\Bbb R^m \setminus \Bbb Q^m$. $\endgroup$ – Greg Martin Mar 27 '16 at 4:10

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.