Consider a real function $f$ and take $\mathbb R$ together with Lebesgue measure $m$. I want to check if I have the right reasoning with regards to working with the following "almost everywhere" statement; I have that $f(x)\neq0$ for almost all $x\in\mathbb R$.

Now, I know that this means that the set of $x\in\mathbb R$ for which $f(x)=0$ is a null set with respect to Lebesgue measure. That is, $m(\{x\in\mathbb R:f(x)=0\})=0$. But since the statement that $f(x)\neq0$ holds for almost all $x\in\mathbb R$, does that mean that $m(\{x\in\mathbb R:f(x)\neq0\})=m(\mathbb R)=+\infty$? My thinking is that since the statement holds for all $\mathbb R$ except possibly on a subset of $\mathbb R$ with measure zero, then the measure of the set on which the statement holds must coincide with the measure of $\mathbb R$; is this the correct reasoning?

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right. $\endgroup$ – Kabo Murphy Nov 13 '18 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ @mathworker21, I don't think that it is too worrisome (unless you can indicate why it ought to be). I was unsure how to make use of the additivity property of the measure in a rigorous manner, but I see now how designating this set as $E$ makes that much clearer. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Jeffrey James Nov 13 '18 at 8:33
  • $\begingroup$ @JeremyJeffreyJames my apologies for the comment. I was wrong $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Nov 13 '18 at 8:45

No issues with what you have said : $f(x) \neq 0$ almost everywhere, means that the set $\{x : f(x) = 0\}$ has Lebesgue measure zero, which implies that the set $\{x : f(x) \neq 0\}$ has the same Lebesgue measure as $\mathbb R$, which is $+\infty$.

However, note that the converse is not true : if I tell you that the set $\{x : f(x) \neq 0\}$ has measure $+\infty$, then this does not imply that $f(x) \neq 0$ almost everywhere. For example, take $f(x) = 0$ if $[x]$ is a multiple of $2$, and $1$ otherwise. Then $\{x : f(x) \neq 0\}$ and $\{x : f(x) = 0\}$ have measure $+\infty$.

In short, I want to tell you that when you say "$f(x) \neq 0$ almost everywhere means $\{x : f(x) \neq 0\}$ has measure infinite", we say it with the idea that the left side of the "means" is like a definition and the right side is an equivalent statement. However, the "means" for you, is an implication : the statements are not equivalent, as I showed. You should therefore be careful about a definition and an implication : that $\{f(x) =0\}$ has Lebesgue measure zero is the definition of $f(x) \neq 0$ almmost everywhere. On the other hand, that $\{f(x) \neq 0\}$ has full measure is an implication of $f(x) \neq 0$ everywhere, and not equivalent to it. As long as you are aware of this, you can be relatively be relaxed about what you are writing.


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.