0
$\begingroup$

For a presentation, I am learning about the Cantor Set and how it is homeomorphic to the p-adic numbers. I was reading section two of this paper. In it it states that the Cantor Set has a vanishing Lebesgue measure.

Wikipedia says: Given a subset ${\displaystyle E\subseteq \mathbb {R} } $, with the length of interval ${\displaystyle I=[a,b]({\text{or }}I=(a,b))} $ given by ${\displaystyle \ell (I)=b-a} $, the Lebesgue outer measure ${\displaystyle \lambda ^{*}(E)} $ is defined as

$${\displaystyle \lambda ^{*}(E)=\operatorname {inf} \left\{\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\ell (I_{k}):{(I_{k})_{k\in \mathbb {N} }}{\text{ is a sequence of open intervals with }}E\subseteq \bigcup _{k=1}^{\infty }I_{k}\right\}} $$.

Why would this be zero for the Cantor Set?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Show that the complement of the Cantor set in $[0,1]$ has measure 1. You will also have to use that the Cantor set is measurable, hence $\lambda^*([0,1]) = \lambda^*(E\cap[0,1]) + \lambda^*(E^c\cap[0,1])$, in which $E$ is the Cantor set.

What is your background on Measure Theory?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Background is very minimal. I really only understand the basics. Could you explain your answer a little more? $\endgroup$ – bkarthik May 29 '18 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ The Lebesgue measure is pretty much a way of extending the notion of "length", which is intuitive for intervals in $\mathbb{R}$, but not for general subsets. In the case of the cantor set the idea is that in the first step you subtract from $[0,1]$ a one interval of length 1/3, from that remaining set you subtract 2 intervals of length 1/9, and so on, so on the nth step you are subtracting $2^{n-1}$ intervals of length $1/3^n$ $\endgroup$ – Endov May 29 '18 at 1:53
  • $\begingroup$ So in the end the total "length" you subtract from $[0,1]$ is $\sum_{n=1}^\infty 2^{n-1}/3^n = (1/2)\sum_{n=1}^\infty (2/3)^n = 1$, and since the length of $[0,1]$ is 1, the "length"(measure) of the Cantor set is 0. $\endgroup$ – Endov May 29 '18 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ This makes much more intuitive sense. Much obliged. $\endgroup$ – bkarthik May 29 '18 at 1:56
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome. I have add here that measure theory is more profound then what I just explained, if you ever want to study it a good reference book is Folland's "Real Analysis". $\endgroup$ – Endov May 29 '18 at 1:58

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.