I'm trying to develop the fact that the measure of a box is equal to the volume of a box for any measure $m$, i.e., a function satisfying the standard properties of monotonicity, positivity, countable sub-additivity, translation invariance, etc.

I'm trying to show that the sets $(1,\frac{1}{q})^n$ and $[1,\frac{1}{q}]^n$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ both have measure $\frac{1}{q^n}$, for $q>1$ an integer. First, by translating each coordinate by $k/q$ where $0\leq k\leq q-1$, one sees that $q^n$ disjoint translates of $(0,1/q)^n$ are contained in $[0,1]^n$. But normalization, monotonicity, and translation invariance, it follows that $$ q^n m((0,1/q)^n)\leq 1$$ so $m((0,1/q)^n)\leq q^{-n}$. Similarly, the $q^n$ translates of $[0,1/q]^n$ cover $[0,1]^n$, so $q^nm([0,1/q]^n)\geq 1$, which implies $m([0,1/q]^n)\geq q^{-n}$.

To finish, I'd like to show that $m([0,1/q]^n\setminus(0,1/q)^n)=0$. So given $\epsilon>0$, I'm trying to cover the boundary of the cube by a family of boxes whose measure is less than $\epsilon$. But without knowing at this point what the measure of a box is, since the measure is not necessarily the Lesbegue measure, I'm stuck. How can I show the measure of the boundary of the cube is $0$? Thanks.

The axioms for $m$ are as follows: $\mathbb{R}^n$ is a Euclidean space.

  • Every open and closed set is measurable.
  • The complement of every measurable set is measurable.
  • Finite/countable unions and intersections of measurable sets are measurable.
  • $m(\emptyset)=0$.
  • $0\leq m(A)\leq\infty$ for every measurable set.
  • If $A\subseteq B$, then $m(A)\leq m(B)$.
  • If $(A_j)_{j\in J}$ is a family of measurable sets, then $m(\bigcup A_j)\leq\sum m(A_j)$.
  • If $(A_j)_{j\in J}$ is a family of disjoint measurable sets, then $m(\bigcup A_j)=\sum m(A_j)$.
  • $m([0,1]^n)=1$.
  • If $A$ is measurable, $m(x+A)=m(A)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you please list the axioms you're requiring for $m$? We need to rule out the $n-1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. I guess it's ruled out by normalization, which you used to get $m([0,1]^n)=1$? $\endgroup$ – Chris Culter Aug 4 '13 at 3:27
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisCulter Sure, I've added the axioms now. $\endgroup$ – Nastassja Aug 4 '13 at 4:55

Oh, okay! From the above axioms, you can show that $$m\left((-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times[0,1]^{n-1}\right)\leq2\epsilon,$$ i.e. $(n-1)$-dimensional faces can be covered by thickenings with arbitrarily small measure. This follows from stacking a bunch of translates of such a slice inside of $[0,1]^n$, which has known measure. It's the same argument you're already using for cubes, except it focuses on one dimension at a time, instead of shrinking all $n$ dimensions at once.

  • $\begingroup$ I'm beginning to see it now, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Nastassja Aug 4 '13 at 7:19

I assume that the sigma-algebra you are working with is the usual (Borel) one. Then translation-invariance property of your measure implies that it is the Haar measure on the Lie group $R^n$, which is therefore unique up to scaling, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haar_measure. Thus, your measure is a scalar multiple of the Lebesgue measure.


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.