0
$\begingroup$

I am attempting the following question:

Let $\mu^*$ denote an exterior measure, $\{A_j\}$ collection of disjoint, $\mu^*-measurable$ sets, show for any E:

$\mu^*(E \cap (\cup(A_j)) = \sum \mu^*(E\cap A_j)$

Using the fact that the collection of measurable sets is a $\sigma -algebra$ and hence closed under intersection, plus that an outer measure is a measure on measurable sets, the results follows immediately. However, given the next question is to state Caratheodony, it seems odd you would need it.

However, I can't see how you can get an equality without something showing it is a measure on these sets.

Update

Sorry, Carathédony states that given an outer measure on X, the set M of sets that are measurable wrt $\mu^*$ form a sigma algebra and $\mu^*$ restricted to M is a measure (e.g. we have the property that the size of the disjoint union of sets is equal to the sum of the measures).

However, I would like to know if proving the above statement is possible without using the fact that $\mu^*$ is a measure. Instead, I would like only to use the definition of measureability:

A measurable if

$\forall E \in X, \mu^*(E) = \mu^*(E \cap A) + \mu^*(E \cap A^c) $

and that $\mu^*$ is an outer measure:

$\mu^*(\phi) = 0$

$ A \subseteq B \Rightarrow \mu^*(A) \leq \mu^*(B)$

$\mu^*(\cup A_j) \leq \sum \mu^*(A_j)$

$\endgroup$

bumped to the homepage by Community 10 hours ago

This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

0
$\begingroup$

To get equality you just need to show that:

$\mu^*(E\cap(\cup (A_j))=\mu^*(\cup(A_j\cap E))$ now show that $A_j\cap E$ are disjoint for all $j$, and you get equality. Since all $A_j$ are disjoint, it follows that $A_j\cap E$ are disjoint, since $A_j\cap E\subset A_j$.

Thus $\mu^*(\cup(A_j\cap E))=\sum\mu^*(A_j\cap E)$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But an outer measure only has the property that the size of the union is $\leq$ the sum of the sizes. Do you not need $\mu^*$ to be a measure to deduce equality? I know it is, when restricted to measurable, but only via Caratheodony, is there an alternative? $\endgroup$ – T. Kiley Apr 3 '14 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ Because the sets are $\mu^*$ measurable doesn't the axiom then hold? since $\mu^*$ is then a measure on them? $\endgroup$ – Ellya Apr 3 '14 at 13:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Ellya: perhaps that is what Kiley means by "Caratheodory"---he didn't say. $\endgroup$ – GEdgar Apr 3 '14 at 14:03
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I have updated the question to explain what I didn't want to use :D $\endgroup$ – T. Kiley Apr 3 '14 at 14:31

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.