2
$\begingroup$

Let $A = \bigcup_{n \in I} A_n \subset \Bbb{R}^k$ where $I$ is an arbitrary index set. Define the Lebesgue outer measure by

$m^*(A) := \inf \ \{ \sum_{n} \text{vol}(I_n) : I_n, n \geq 1$ are each any type of interval and $A \subset \bigcup_n I_n \}$.

Then how can we prove $m^*(A) \leq \sum_n m^*(A_n)$ elegantly. The proof in my book is kind of hand-wavy and very complicated for something intuitively obvious.

Also this is the first property of such objects other than $m^*$ is monotonic: $A \subset B \implies m^*(A) \leq m^*(B)$. First properties should be easily proven or something is wrong with the proof technique! It has to be fixed.

So I am on the search for an elegant proof. Maybe Galois connections?

The idea is that if I am successful, I can apply the proof technique to other such over-complicated examples I encounter.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Jan 12 '19 at 4:33
3
$\begingroup$

(This answer assumes that $I$ is countable)

This is a case for the $\epsilon/2^n$ trick, in combination with the "give yourself an epsilon of room" trick. Once we've internalized these tricks the proof seems straightforward.

Let $\epsilon > 0$. For each positive integer $n$, let $\{I_{nj}\}$ be a countable collection of intervals such that $A_n \subset \cup_j I_{nj}$ and $$\sum_{j} |I_{nj}| \leq m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}. $$ Then

$$ A \subset \cup_{n,j} I_{nj} $$ and

\begin{align} m^*(A) &\leq \sum_{n,j} |I_{nj}| \\ &= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{j=1}^\infty |I_{nj}| \\ &\leq \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \frac{\epsilon}{2^n} \\ &= \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \underbrace{\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\epsilon}{2^n}}_\epsilon. \end{align}

This shows that $$ m^*(A) \leq \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n) + \epsilon $$ for any $\epsilon > 0$. It follows that $$ m^*(A) \leq \sum_{n=1}^\infty m^*(A_n). $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable. $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit Jan 12 '19 at 2:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $\varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances. $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit Jan 12 '19 at 2:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Jan 12 '19 at 3:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yes. $[0,1]=\bigcup_{t\in[0,1]}\{t\}$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Jan 12 '19 at 3:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-( $\endgroup$ – Theo Bendit Jan 12 '19 at 4:11

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.