This is Problem 6.45 from Jones' Lebesgue Integration on Euclidean Space.

Prove that there does not exist a set $E \subset \mathbb{R}$ such that $\lambda(E \cap [a,b])=\frac{1}{2}(b-a)$ for all $-\infty<a<b<\infty$.

It is one of 'some facts about integration', according to the book, but I don't see how this problem can be solved using integration. The statement is similar to $\int_{a}^{b} \chi_E \, d\lambda=\frac{1}{2}(b-a)$, but I'm not even sure if $E$ is measurable or not, so the integral doesn't make sense yet. Can someone give me a hint for this problem?

  • $\begingroup$ $\lambda$ is the lebesgue measure here. $\endgroup$ – Dilemian Jan 4 '17 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $E$ isn't measurable, $\lambda(E\cap [a,b])$ doesn't make sense in general. And what do you know about the density of measurable sets? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 4 '17 at 14:26

I'm assuming $\lambda$ refers to Lebesgue measure defined on the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra (and not the associated outer measure). In that case $E$ belongs to the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra.

  • Suppose first that $\lambda(E)<\infty$.

Given $\epsilon>0$, there exists $G=\cup_i (a_i,b_i)$ where the union is disjoint and countable such that $E\subset G$ and $\lambda(G\setminus E)\leq \epsilon$.

$\lambda(E)=\lambda(E\cap G)=\sum_1^\infty \lambda(E\cap (a_i,b_i))=\sum_1^\infty \lambda(E\cap [a_i,b_i])=\frac 12 \sum_1^\infty (b_i-a_i)=\frac 12 \lambda(G)$

Thus $\lambda(G) = \lambda(E) + \lambda(G\setminus E)\leq \frac 12 \lambda(G) + \epsilon $

By our finiteness assumption, $\lambda(G)\leq 2\epsilon$ and $\lambda(E)\leq 2\epsilon$ for any $\epsilon >0$, that is $\lambda(E)=0$ which is a contradiction with the initial assumption.

  • In the general case, let $E_n=(-n,n)\cap E$ and note that $E_n$ increases to $E$.

Also note that $\lambda(E_n \cap [a,b])=\frac{1}{2}(b-a)$ whenever $[a,b]\subset (-n,n)$.

Let $G$ be an open set such that $E_n\subset G$ and $\lambda(G\setminus E_n)\leq \epsilon$. Let $G'=G\cap (-n,n)$ which is open and satisfies $\lambda (G'\setminus E_n)\leq \lambda (G\setminus E_n)\leq \epsilon$. You may write $G'=\cup_i (a_i,b_i)$ with $(a_i,b_i)\subset (-n,n)$.

The same reasoning as above yields $\lambda(G')\leq 2\epsilon$ and $\lambda(E_n)=0$.

But $\lambda(E)=\lim_n \lambda(E_n)=0$.

I must thank Daniel Fischer for fixing the missing argument in my proof.


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.