Here is the question and its solution:

Show that the Vitali Covering Lemma extends to the case in which the covering collection consists of nondegenerate intervals that are not necessarily closed


Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given. Let $E\subseteq R$ such that $m^{*}(E)< \infty $. Let $\mathcal{F}$ contains non degenerate general intervals(not necessarily closed ). Then, $F$ contains all kind of intervals such that the length of those intervals is not zero since they are non degenerate intervals. Since $m^{*}(E)< \infty $ there is an open set $\mathcal{O}$ containing $E$ for which $m(\mathcal{O}) < \infty.$ because $\mathcal{F}$ is a Vitali covering of $E,$ we may assume that each interval in $\mathcal{F}$ is contained in $\mathcal{O}.$


Let $x \in E \subseteq \mathcal{O}$, there is some $r > 0$ such that $B(x,r) \subseteq \mathcal{O}$ (as $\mathcal{O}$ is an open set, so every point in $\mathcal{O}$ is an interior point ).\

Now, given $\frac{r}{2} > 0$, there is an $I = (a,b) \in \mathcal{F}$ with $\ell (I) < \frac{r}{2}$ such that $x \in I$ (by definition of covering in the sense of Vitali). Hence $b-a < \frac{r}{2}$ or $b < \frac{r}{2} + a$, and $a < x < b$. From these we get $a < x < a + \frac{r}{2}$ or $|x-a| < \frac{r}{2}$. Hence, if $y \in I = (a,b)$, then

$\begin{align} |x-y| &= |(x-a) + (a-y)| \\ &\le |x-a| + |y-a| \\ &< \frac{r}{2} + \frac{r}{2} = r, \\ \end{align} $ and therefore $y \in B(x,r)$, from which it follows $I \subseteq B(x,r) \subseteq \mathcal{O}$.\

Now, by countable additivity and monotonicity of measure, we have if $\{ I_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \subseteq \mathcal{F}$ is disjoint,then $$\sum_{k = 1}^{\infty} \ell (I_{k}) \leq m(\mathcal{O}) < \infty.$$ \

Now, since the intervals of $\mathcal{F}$ are nondegenerate and not necessarily closed and since by proposition 9 on pg. 17 we have that every nonempty open set (we are speaking about $\mathcal{O}$, if the open interval in it is larger than $\mathcal{F}$ we can shrink by a similar argument to the justification above, the only difference is that we will keep the interval open ) is the disjoint union of a countable collection of open intervals,we can find an open interval $(a,b)$ in $\mathcal{F}$ from which we can create closed intervals as follows:\

Assume that we have the nondegenerate ($a < b$) open interval $ I = (a,b)$, then it contains the following closed interval $[a + \frac{b-a}{3}, b - \frac{b-a}{3}]$ and we have $a < a + \frac{b-a}{3} < b - \frac{b-a}{3} < b.$\

Now, define $\mathcal{F}_{o} = \{J \in \mathcal{F}: J \textbf{ is closed and bounded and} J \subseteq I\}.$ \

Now by the justification above we can assume that each $J$ in $\mathcal{F}_{o}$ is contained in $\mathcal{O}$ as $\mathcal{F}_{o} \subseteq \mathcal{F}.$ Moreover, by countable additivity and monotonicity of measure, we have if $\{ J_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} \subseteq \mathcal{F}_{0}$ is disjoint,then $$\sum_{k = 1}^{\infty} \ell (J_{k}) \leq m(\mathcal{O}) < \infty.$$ \

Moreover, since each $J_{k}$ is closed and $\mathcal{F}_{0}$ is a Vitali covering of $E,$ if $\{J_{k}\}_{k =1}^{n} \subseteq \mathcal{F}_{0}$, then $$ E \setminus \bigcup_{k =1}^{n} J_{k} \subseteq \bigcup_{J'\in \mathcal{F}_{o}^n} J' \textbf{where }\mathcal{F}_{o}^n = \{ J' \in \mathcal{F}_{0} | J' \cap \bigcup_{k =1}^{n} J_{k} = \emptyset \} $$


Let $\{J_k\}_{k=1}^n \subseteq \mathcal{F}_{0}$ and let $x \in E \setminus \bigcup_{k=1}^n J_{k}$. Then $x \notin J_k$ for every $k$, and, as the $J_k$ are closed, there exists $r_k > 0$ for which $B(x,r_k) \cap J_k = \emptyset$. Letting $r = \frac{1}{2} \min\{r_1,...,r_n\}$, there exists $J_r$ with $\ell(J_r) < r \le \frac{r_k}{2}$ for each $k$ such that $x \in J_r$. But, as we saw above, this means $J_r \subseteq B(x,r_k)$ for each $k$ and therefore $J_r \cap J_k = \emptyset$ for each $k$. Hence $x \in J_r \subseteq \bigcup_{J' \in \mathcal{F}_{o}^n} J'$. \

If there is a finite disjoint subcollection of $\mathcal{F}_{o}$ that covers $E,$ the proof is complete. Otherwise, we will define the disjoint countable subcollection $\{J_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of $\mathcal{F}_{o}$ inductively. Let $J_{1} \in \mathcal{F}_{o} $ be arbitrary and suppose that $J_{1}, ..., J_{n}$ have been chosen.), which has the following property

$$ E \setminus \bigcup_{k =1}^{n} J_{k} \subseteq \bigcup _{k = n +1}^{\infty} 5 \times J_{k} \textbf{ for all n},$$(in this step a problem may arise if $J_{k}$ were not closed). Where for a closed bounded interval $J,$ $ 5 \times J $ denotes the closed interval that has the same midpoint as $J$ and 5 times its length.

To begin this selection, Let $J_{1} \in \mathcal{F}_{o} $ be arbitrary and suppose that $n$ is a natural number and the finite disjoint subcollection $J_{1}, ..., J_{n}$ have been chosen. If $E \setminus J_{1} = \emptyset $, then the proof is complete. Otherwise, choose any $J_{2}\in \mathcal{F}_{o}^1 $ such that $\ell (J_{2}) > S_{1}/2$ (continuing in this way i.e. If $E\setminus (J_{1} \cup J_{2})= \emptyset $, then the proof is complete and so on )where $S_{n}$ is the supremum of the lenths of the intervals in $\mathcal{F}_{o}^n$ and its finite since m($\mathcal{O}$) ia an upper bound for these lengths and $S_{n}$ is greater than $0$ because $E$ is not covered by $J_{1}, ..., J_{n}$. mimic the remaining steps of the proof of vitali covering lemma on pg.110 in our book.

My question is:

1-It turns out that the answer is wrong, specifically the defined set $\mathcal{F}_{0}$ and the bold paragraph, but I do not understand why this is wrong, could anyone clarify this for me, please?

2-Also, sharing the correct solution for this problem will be appreciated.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.