2
$\begingroup$

As a problem during introduction to measure theory, I am asked to prove the following.

Let $A \subset [0,1]$ such that $A$ is measurable with $\mu(A) = 0$ ($\mu$ being the Lebesgue measure). Prove that $A^c = [0,1] \setminus A$ is dense in $[0,1]$.

This makes intuitive sense to me $-$ since $\mu(A) = 0$, using that $\mu(X) = \mu(X \cap A) + \mu(X \cap A^c)$ for every $X \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ we get $\mu([0,1]) = \mu(A) + \mu(A^c) = \{\mu(A)=0\} = \mu(A^c)$. Thus, $A^c$ has the same measure as $[0,1]$. I am aware that this is not the definition of $A^c$ being dense in $[0,1]$ though, and I do not know how to formalize this proof.

Any advice would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Suppose otherwise. Then there are $a,b$ in the complement with $a<b$ and $(a,b) \subset A$. Can you conclude? $\endgroup$ – MathematicsStudent1122 May 15 '17 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ $A^c$ is dense in $[0,1]$ means that $\lim_{j\to\infty} a_j = x \in [0,1]$ for all $a_j \in A^c$. So, if $A^c$ would not be dense in $[0,1]$, then there would exist some interval $(a,b) \subset [0,1]$ such that $(a,b) \not\subset A^c \Leftrightarrow (a,b) \subset A$. Since $A$ contains at least one non-empty open sub-interval, $\mu(A) > 0$, which contradicts the assumption $\mu(A) = 0$. Is this correct? I am still a bit uncartain about why the fact that there is no sequence $a_j \in A^c$ that converges to some $x \in [0,1]$ would imply that there is such an open interval... $\endgroup$ – 0ffset May 15 '17 at 21:57
6
$\begingroup$

Your comment suggests you might want to review the definition of dense.

Recall that $A^{c} \subseteq [0,1]$ is dense if and only if for each $x \in [0,1]$ and each $\delta > 0$, there is a $b \in A^{c}$ such that $b \in (x - \delta, x + \delta)$.

Now we prove $\mu(A) = 0$ implies $A^{c}$ is dense (with $\mu$ denoting Lebesgue measure). Suppose $x \in [0,1]$ is arbitrary and $\delta >0$. Then $\mu((x - \delta,x + \delta)) = 2 \delta$. Thus, $\begin{align}\mu(A^{c} \cap (x - \delta, x + \delta))\\&= \mu((x - \delta,x + \delta)) - \mu(A \cap (x - \delta,x + \delta))\\& = \mu((x - \delta,x + \delta))\\& = 2 \delta \end{align}$ by additivity of the measure and since $\mu(A) = 0$. Since $A^{c} \cap (x -\delta,x + \delta)$ has positive measure, it is necessarily non-empty. In particular, we can pick $b \in A^{c} \cap (x - \delta,x+\delta)$.

Since $x$ and $\delta$ were arbitrary, this proves $A^{c}$ is dense in $[0,1]$. $\qquad\blacksquare$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

If $A^c$ is not dense then $\exists a\in\mathbb{R}$ $\colon$ $(a-\delta,a+\delta)$ does not contain any element $b$ of $A^c$ where $b\ne a$. So $(a-\delta,a+\delta)\setminus\{a\}\subset E$.

$\begin{align}\text{But, } m^*((a-\delta,a+\delta)\setminus\{a\})&=m^*((a-\delta,a)\cup(a,a+\delta))\\&=m^*((a-\delta,a))+ m^*((a+\delta,a))\\&=2\delta \end{align}$

$\text{So, } m^*(A)\ge2\delta\implies m^*(A)\ne0 $

So we arrive at a contradiction.$\qquad\blacksquare$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.