0
$\begingroup$

Show $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ is a Lebesgue Measurable set $\iff$ there exists $F_\sigma$ set $F \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ contained in $A$ and $G_\delta$ set $G \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ containing $A$ s.t. $m(G \setminus A) = m(A \setminus F) = 0$


Note: Up to now, I have proven inner and outer regularity of $m$. Definitions below:

Inner Regular: If $A$ is Lebesgue Measurable, then $m(A)=sup\{m(K) | K$ is an closed set contained in $A \}$

Outer Regular: If $A$ is Lebesgue Measurable, then $m(A)=inf\{m(U) | U$ is an open set containing $A \}$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind elaborate the so-called "inner and outer regularity"? Different text might use different terminologies. $\endgroup$ – xbh Sep 5 '18 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, editted the question $\endgroup$ – NazimJ Sep 5 '18 at 16:45
1
$\begingroup$

Different authors define Lebesgue measurability differently. One common definition is that $A \subset \mathbb R$ is measurable if and only if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G \supset A$ satisfying $m^*(G \setminus A) < \epsilon$ where $m^*$ is the Lebesgue outer measure. A simple consequence of this definition is that any set $E$ with $m^*(E) = 0$ is measurable.

Suppose $A$ is measurable. For every $k \ge 1$ there exists $G_k \supset A$ so that $m^*(G_k \setminus A) < \frac 1k$. Define $G = \cap G_k$. Then $G$ is a $G_\delta$ set, $G \subset G_k$ for all $k$ and $$m^*(G \setminus A) \le m^*(G_k \setminus A) < \frac 1k$$ for all $k$, forcing $m^*(G \setminus A) = 0$.

Likewise, $A$ measurable implies $\mathbb R \setminus A$ measurable, so by the above reasoning there exists a $G_\delta$ set $H \supset \mathbb R \setminus A$ with $m^*(H \setminus (\mathbb R \setminus A)) = 0$. If you let $F = \mathbb R \setminus H$ you find that $F$ is an $F_\sigma$ set, $F \subset A$, and $$m^*(A \setminus F) = m^*(H \setminus (\mathbb R \setminus A)) = 0.$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see you use the fact the the compliment of a 'G_\delta' set is an 'F_\sigma' set. But one piece of logic I can't seem to connect is the last line, 'm^{*} (A \setminus F) = m^{*} (H \setminus (\mathbb{R} \setminus A))'. Why is their measure the same? $\endgroup$ – NazimJ Sep 6 '18 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ Write set difference using intersection and complement: $A \setminus F = A \cap F^c$. Since $F^c = H$ you have $$A \cap F^c = A \cap H = H \cap A^{cc} = H \cap (\mathbb R \setminus A)^c.$$ $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Sep 6 '18 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ That is, $A \setminus F$ and $H \setminus (\mathbb R \setminus A)$ are the same set. $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Sep 6 '18 at 15:33
0
$\begingroup$

If $m(A)<\infty$ we have the following: For each $j\in \mathbb{N}$ there exist by inner and outer regularity a compact set $K_j\subset A$ and an open set $U_j\supset A$ s.t $$ m(U_j)+1/j \leq m(A)\leq m(K_j)-1/j. $$

Put $G=\cap_{j}A_j$ and $F=\cup_j(K_j)$. Then $G$ and $F$ are the desired $G_\delta$ and $F_{\sigma}$ sets respectively.

If $m(A)=\infty$, then decompose $A$ as $A=\cup_j (A\cap(j,j+1])$ then apply the above exposed to each $A_j=A\cap(j,j+1]$.

On the other hand if there exists a $G$ a $G_\delta$ set satisfying $m(G\setminus A)=0$ and $m(A\setminus F)=0$, we have for each test set $E$

$$ m(E)=m(E\cap G)+m(E\cap G^c)\geq m(E\cap A)+m(E\cap A^c\cap(G\setminus A)^c)\geq m(E\cap A)+m(E\cap A^c) $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What if $m(A) = \infty$? $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Sep 5 '18 at 16:59
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the warning $\endgroup$ – Eduardo Sep 5 '18 at 17:03

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.