0
$\begingroup$

I just started learning about zero measure sets for multivariable integral calculus. The definition of a zero measure set is the following:

Let $A \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. We say it has zero measure if $\forall \epsilon > 0$ there exist a family of closed and bounded intervals $\{I_j\}$ finite or countably infinite such that $A \subset \cup_j I_j$ and $\sum_j V(I_j)<\epsilon.$

The interval $(0,2) \in \mathbb{R}$ is given as an example of non zero measure set.

After this, the following theorem is stated and proven:

Let $I$ be a closed and bounded interval of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $g:I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ integrable in $I$. Then the set:

$A=\{(x_1,...,x_n,x_{n+1}) \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} : (x_1,...,x_n)\in I, x_{n+1}=g(x_1,...,x_n)\}$ has zero measure.

So the set $\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2: 0 \le x \le 10, y=x^2\}$ would have zero measure. Intuitively the interval $(0,2)$ is "smaller" than the set $A$ so how is it possible to cover $A$ with arbitrarily small closed and bounded sets but it is not possible to do the same with $(0,2)$? I know we can' t really compare them because closed and bounded sets in $\mathbb{R}^2$ are not the same as the ones in $\mathbb{R}$ but I still see this as counter-intuitive.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In $\Bbb R^2$ the measure is "area" but in $\Bbb R^1$ the measure is "length". $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown May 7 '18 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ Oh okay. So then if a set covers $(0,2)$ we would have that $\sum_j V(I_j)$ would be at least 2 but in $\mathbb{R}^2$ the areas of a family of sets that cover a curve can be made as small as we want? $\endgroup$ – Yagger May 7 '18 at 10:29
  • $\begingroup$ What is an "interval of $\mathbb R^n$"? $\endgroup$ – Jack M May 7 '18 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ @JackM From the book i'm following it's the cartesian product of n intervals of $\mathbb{R}$ $\endgroup$ – Yagger May 7 '18 at 12:02
0
$\begingroup$

One-line explanation: We're talking about different notions of "zero area". If $\delta>0$ is vvery small then $\delta^2$ is much smaller than $\delta$, so there's no problem having $\sum\delta_j=1$ and $\sum\delta_j^2<\epsilon$.

More formally: Let $A=[0,1]\subset\Bbb R$ and $B=[0,1]\times\{0\}\subset\Bbb R^2$. Then

(i) $A$ is not a zero-area subset of $\Bbb R$.

(ii) $B$ is a zero-area subset of $\Bbb R^2$.

These both seem intuitively clear to me: The "area" in $\Bbb R$ is just the length, and $A$ has positive length. Otoh the "area" in $\Bbb R^2$ is "two-dimensional area", and $B$ certainly looks like it has zero two-dimensional area.

The actual proof of (i) is not quite trivial; I'm going to ignore that, since I think it seems plausible and I gather there's a proof in the book.

Proof of (ii): Let $I_j=[(j-1)/n,j/n]\times[0,1/n]$. Then $B\subset\bigcup_{j=1}^n I_j$, and $$\sum V(I_j)=n\sum_{j=1}^n\frac1{n^2}=\frac1n<\epsilon\quad(n>1/\epsilon).$$

More to the point, why (ii) does not contradict (i): Saying $B\subset\bigcup I_j$ says just that $A\subset\bigcup I_j'$, where $I_j'=[(j-1)/n,j/n]$. And $$\sum V(I_j')=n\sum\frac1n=1.$$

Probably it would be better to write $V_n(I)$ instead of $V(I)$. The point being that $V(I_j')=V_1(I_j')=1/n$, while $V(I_j)=V_2(I_j)=1/n^2$, much smaller.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! My confusion came from reading the definition of zero measure before understanding the concept of $V(I)$. $\endgroup$ – Yagger May 7 '18 at 12:01

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.