I cannot detect the fallacy in the set of the following statements in my inconsistent notes:

  1. A sigma algebra is a set of the sets in the generating set closed under the set operations countable union, countable intersection, set difference, relative complement.

  2. A Borel set is a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ constructed from open and closed intervals in $\mathbb{R}$ by taking the operations countable union and intersection.

  3. The set of Lebesgue measurable sets on $\mathbb{R}$ is a sigma algebra generated from the open and closed intervals in $\mathbb{R}$.

  4. By the statements 2 and 3 every Lebesgue measurable set on $\mathbb{R}$ is a Borel set.

  5. There is a Lebesgue measurable set that is not Borel.

  6. By 4 and 5, falsity.

Which statements in my notes are not true and why?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 3, namely that the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra 'generated' by the open intervals (and rays), might be misunderstood. It's not the smallest $\sigma$-algebra containing all intervals; that would be the Borel $\sigma$-algebra. However, it is the $\sigma$-algebra generated from them by the process of Carathéodory's extension theorem. $\endgroup$ Nov 8 '13 at 10:35

The problem is statement (3).

The Lebesgue measure algebra is indeed a $\sigma$-algebra, but it is generated by completing the Borel $\sigma$-algebra with respect to the null sets ideal.

One can prove that there are only $2^{\aleph_0}$ Borel sets, but since the Cantor set is Borel, and of measure zero, every subset of the Cantor set is measurable. But then again the Cantor set has cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$, so it has $2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$ subsets, all of which are Lebesgue measurable; and so most of them are not even Borel sets.


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.