Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - Prove every set in [0,1], A, with positive measure has a non-measurable subset

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    147

    Prove every set in [0,1], A, with positive measure has a non-measurable subset

    I know there exists a non-measurable subset in [0,1). Call it P

    I was thinking in the intersection maybe? I don't know how to proceed.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor
    Opalg's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2007
    From
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    4,041
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by southprkfan1 View Post
    I know there exists a non-measurable subset in [0,1). Call it P

    I was thinking in the intersection maybe? I don't know how to proceed.
    As far as I know, this is quite a tricky result. There is a proof of it in Halmos's Measure Theory (Theorem E, p.70).

    Given a set M of positive measure, it's a very natural idea to think that M\cap P would provide an answer to the problem, but unfortunately that won't work. The difficulty is that a general non-measurable set P might be concentrated in one half of the interval, and M in the other half. The standard construction of a non-measurable set P does appear to give a set that is somehow spread right through the interval, but Halmos's proof requires a strengthening of that construction.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,602
    Thanks
    1421
    Actually, what Halmos proves is that if \mu is a "finite, sigma additive, translation invariant, non-trivial" measure, like Lebesque measure, then there exist a non-measurable subset of A. In fact, he exhibits that set- which can be taken to be the same for all such measures.

    The proof in Halmos involves saying that two number in [0,1] are "equivalent" if and only if x- y is rational, forming the "equivalence classes" and forming the "non-measurable set", A, by taking one member of each equivalence class to be in A.

    You then define "translation by p modulo 1" as "x+ p if x+p< 1, x+p-1 if x+p\ge 1. Then define "translation of A by p modulo 1" as \{x+ p (modulo 1)| x\in A\}

    If I remember correctly, Halmos shows that, for any "finite, sigma additive, translation invariant measure" (such as Lebesque measure), the measure of "translation of A by p modulo 1" is equal to the "translation of A by q modulo 1" where p and q are any two rational numbers.

    He also shows that those two sets are disjoint, for any two rational numbers, and that every number in [0, 1] is in one of them. That is, [0, 1] is the countable union of such sets where the union is over all rational numbers.

    Since the measure is sigma additive, the measure of countable sum of same number. That will be finite only if the common measure of all those sets is 0 in which case [0, 1) (and every subset of [0, 1)) has measure 0. And that is only true for the trivial measure \mu(A)= 0 for every measureable A.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    147
    That proof is a little to abstract for me and uses a concept (inner measure) that my prof explicitly rejected.

    However, I believe I have a possible solution, but first I need to show that a measurable subset of P must have measure 0. I have posted this in a new topic.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Measurable Subset Question
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 27th 2011, 10:24 AM
  2. [SOLVED] The measure of a subset of the real plane given by inequalities
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 30th 2011, 01:08 PM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 24th 2010, 06:27 AM
  4. Outer measure and measurable sets.
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 3rd 2009, 06:57 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 14th 2008, 09:09 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum