0
$\begingroup$

Suppose $E \subset \mathbb R^d$ has measure $0$ and $f: \mathbb R^d \longrightarrow \mathbb R$ is measurable. Does $f (E)$ necessarily have measure $0$?

I tried to find a counter-example though I failed.It is clear that countable subset will not work for otherwise the image of it is again countable in $\mathbb R$ and hence has measure $0$. So we need to find an uncountable set of measure $0$ which maps to some set in $\mathbb R$ of positive measure under some measurable function in order to find a counter-example.How to find it?

Please help me in finding this example.Then it will really help me.

Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $d>1$. $f(x_1,\dots,x_d) := x_1$ is a measurable map $\mathbb R^d\to\mathbb R$. Furthermore, the set $$E := \{x\in \mathbb R^d \mid x_2 = x_3 = \dots =x_d = 0 \}$$ is null, but $f(E) = \mathbb R$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

You can take the Cantor set in $\Bbb R$ (measure zero) and map it onto the closed interval $[0,1]$ by a continuous increasing function. So, even continuous functions on $\Bbb R$ don't preserve measure zero.

$\endgroup$

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.