4
$\begingroup$

Let $E$ be a set of finite outer measure and $F$ a collection of closed, bounded intervals that cover $E$ in the sense of Vitali. Show that there is a countable disjoint collection {${I_k}$}$_{k=1}^\infty$ of intervals in $F$ for which

$m$*$[E$~$\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}I_k] = 0$.

This is the same as the Vitali Covering Lemma except for each $\epsilon > 0$, $m$*$[E$~$\bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}I_k] < \epsilon$. In that proof, my book (Royden, 4th) uses

Theorem 11: Let $E$ be any set of real numbers. Then, each of the following four assertions is equivalent to the measurability of E.

i) For each $\epsilon > 0$, there is an open set $O$ containing $E$ for which $m$*$(O$~$E)<\epsilon$.

ii) There is a $G_\delta$ set $G$ containing $E$ for which $m$*$(G$~$E)=0$.

iii), iv) etc.

Would this proof boil down to i) -> ii)?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that in the Vitali covering theorem $E$ need not be measurable. Also, Royden's "Vitali Covering Lemma" yields a finite collection of intervals. $\endgroup$ – T. Eskin Dec 9 '12 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ From my book: The Vitali Covering Lemma - Let E be a set of finite outer measure and F a collection of closed, bounded intervals that covers E in the sense of Vitali. Then for each epsilon>0, there is a finite disjoint subcollection, Ik's, of F for which etc. How are they different? $\endgroup$ – Jake Casey Dec 10 '12 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ In the Vitali Covering Lemma, the collection of intervals obtained is finite, while in this exercise, it is countably infinite. Note also that we only know $\mu^{*}(E)<\infty$, not necessarily that $E$ is measurable. $\endgroup$ – T. Eskin Dec 10 '12 at 22:16
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, so what would be a good way to approach this problem? $\endgroup$ – Jake Casey Dec 10 '12 at 22:23
-1
$\begingroup$

Let E be a set of finite outer measure and :F a collection of closed, bounded intervals that covers E in the sense of Vitali. Then for each E > 0, there is a finite disjoint subcollection (Ik}k=1 of :F for which m* [E"- U It] < E. k=1 (2) P

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to MSE. Please format your answer using MathJax. $\endgroup$ – user507623 Jan 1 '18 at 10:00

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.