Oh yes he did at least several times
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...w-measure.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...rsections.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...t-algebra.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...open-sets.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...-infinity.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...ous-below.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...ng-unions.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...ric-space.html
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...sure-sums.html
Do you want more ?
I think it's rather scarce to see someone detailing this way, with good latex, what he's done so far, eh ?
So I guess you'd better check before saying such a thing.
Hint :
Spoiler:
Not at all !
They certainly don't have the same syntax. One speaks a correct English, the other one is obviously a non native speaker !
The use of the LaTeX is not the same. And the level of the questions asked in the forums is completely different from one to another.
And I showed you 9 proofs that tttcomrader transgalactic.
Please check before saying that.
Coming from someone who's only been a member for 10 days and who apparently wasn't in this forum before that, it's quite inappropriate
lol, sorry about the lack of the work that I showed in this thread, this question is actually part of a proof that I read from the current chapter. I didn't type the whole proof out since it isn't really my original work and I only have question on that particular part.
Anyway, thank you and I appreicate the help, and again I apologize for the confusion.
So my work following the hint:
Prove that
Proof.
If , that means , implies that for some n, and that is the only one since all En are disjoint.
Then , and the arguement is the same the other way around.
If , then x is not in any of the E_n, so of course
So now, with that established, I need to think about:
Let
And
Now, can I say that to conclude the proof?