Is it possible to come up with a measure space $(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu)$ such that $\{ \mu(E) : E \in \mathcal{M}\}=[0,+\infty]\setminus \Bbb Q^+$ , where $\Bbb Q^+$ denotes positive rationals

I suspect yes, although I have no idea how to construct such a measure space like this

  • $\begingroup$ @DonThousand if X is the empty set, then I suppose M is also empty, so {μ(E)∣E∈M} is empty and how could that be [0,+∞]\Q+?, I'm surely doing a bad reasoning $\endgroup$ – Robby S. Jan 13 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ I have posted a detailed answer to your question. Please, let me know if you have any question regarding my answer. If my answer provides relevant / helpful information regarding your question, please, upvote it. If my answer actualy answers your question, accept it too, please. To upvote, click the triangle pointing upward above the number (of votes) in front of the question. To accept the answer, click on the check mark beside the answer to toggle it from greyed out to filled in. $\endgroup$ – Ramiro 2 days ago

There is no measure space $(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu)$ such that $\{ \mu(E) : E \in \mathcal{M}\}=[0,+\infty]\setminus \Bbb Q^+$ (where $\Bbb Q^+$ denotes the positive rational numbers).


Let $(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu)$ be a measure space. Suppose that $\{ \mu(E) : E \in \mathcal{M}\}=[0,+\infty]\setminus \Bbb Q^+$.

By a result from Sierpinski, we know that the image of an non-atomic measure is an interval (see for instance, this article in Wikipedia). In fact, from Sierpinski's result, we can easy prove that: if the image of a measure $\mu$ does not contains any interval, then for every $E \in \mathcal{M}$ such that $\mu(E)>0$, $E$ contains (at least) one atom.

Since $\{ \mu(E) : E \in \mathcal{M}\}=[0,+\infty]\setminus \Bbb Q^+$, we can take a $E \in \mathcal{M}$ such that $0<\mu(E)<+\infty$. Let $A \subseteq E$ be an atom. We have that $0<\mu(A) <+\infty$.

Now take $r\in \Bbb Q$ such that $\mu(A)< r < 2 \mu(A)$. So, we have that $$0< r-\mu(A) < \mu(A)$$ Since $\mu(A) \notin \Bbb Q$ and $r\in \Bbb Q$, we have that $ r-\mu(A) \in (0, +\infty) \setminus \Bbb Q^+$. So there is $B \in \mathcal{M}$, such that $\mu(B) = r-\mu(A)$.

Since $A$ is an atom and $\mu(B) < \mu(A)$, we have that $\mu(A\cap B)=0$. So $$\mu(A \cup B) = \mu(A) + \mu(B)= \mu(A) + r-\mu(A) = r \in \Bbb Q$$ Contradiction to the assumption that $\{ \mu(E) : E \in \mathcal{M}\}=[0,+\infty]\setminus \Bbb Q^+$.


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.