Verification of argument in Corollary 3.3 Stein and Shakarchi Real analysis
$begingroup$
I thoght Proof of Corollary 3.3 (ii) is not complete.
As E is not shown to be measurable there.
I thought following argument . As the complement of a measurable set is measurable then $E_1^c, E_2^c....$ are measurable.
this sequence is increasing like (i)
Using that $m(E^c)=lim_{Ntoinfty}m(E_N^c)$
and $E^c=cup E^c_N$ so it is measurable.
Complement is also measurable
SO E is measurable.
Please See my argument. If there is any other argument please suggest.
measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I thoght Proof of Corollary 3.3 (ii) is not complete.
As E is not shown to be measurable there.
I thought following argument . As the complement of a measurable set is measurable then $E_1^c, E_2^c....$ are measurable.
this sequence is increasing like (i)
Using that $m(E^c)=lim_{Ntoinfty}m(E_N^c)$
and $E^c=cup E^c_N$ so it is measurable.
Complement is also measurable
SO E is measurable.
Please See my argument. If there is any other argument please suggest.
measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
$m^*(E) = m(E)$ only if $E$ is measurable.
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Feb 3 at 12:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I thoght Proof of Corollary 3.3 (ii) is not complete.
As E is not shown to be measurable there.
I thought following argument . As the complement of a measurable set is measurable then $E_1^c, E_2^c....$ are measurable.
this sequence is increasing like (i)
Using that $m(E^c)=lim_{Ntoinfty}m(E_N^c)$
and $E^c=cup E^c_N$ so it is measurable.
Complement is also measurable
SO E is measurable.
Please See my argument. If there is any other argument please suggest.
measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure
$endgroup$
I thoght Proof of Corollary 3.3 (ii) is not complete.
As E is not shown to be measurable there.
I thought following argument . As the complement of a measurable set is measurable then $E_1^c, E_2^c....$ are measurable.
this sequence is increasing like (i)
Using that $m(E^c)=lim_{Ntoinfty}m(E_N^c)$
and $E^c=cup E^c_N$ so it is measurable.
Complement is also measurable
SO E is measurable.
Please See my argument. If there is any other argument please suggest.
measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure
measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure
edited Feb 3 at 14:04
Fozoro
1266
1266
asked Feb 3 at 12:50
SRJSRJ
1,8981620
1,8981620
$begingroup$
$m^*(E) = m(E)$ only if $E$ is measurable.
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Feb 3 at 12:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$m^*(E) = m(E)$ only if $E$ is measurable.
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
$m^*(E) = m(E)$ only if $E$ is measurable.
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
$m^*(E) = m(E)$ only if $E$ is measurable.
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Feb 3 at 12:56
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$E$ is shown to be a measurable set here; from the marked identity:
$$E = E_1 setminus bigcup_{k=1}^infty G_i$$
$E_1$ is measurable and so are the $G_i$ as differences of measurable sets so $E$ is measurable. I don't see any incompleteness. The author could have made it more explicit perhaps. But from the start $E=bigcap E_n$ is clearly measurable when all $E_n$ are. (That's what $E_n searrow E$ means.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3098528%2fverification-of-argument-in-corollary-3-3-stein-and-shakarchi-real-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
$E$ is shown to be a measurable set here; from the marked identity:
$$E = E_1 setminus bigcup_{k=1}^infty G_i$$
$E_1$ is measurable and so are the $G_i$ as differences of measurable sets so $E$ is measurable. I don't see any incompleteness. The author could have made it more explicit perhaps. But from the start $E=bigcap E_n$ is clearly measurable when all $E_n$ are. (That's what $E_n searrow E$ means.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$E$ is shown to be a measurable set here; from the marked identity:
$$E = E_1 setminus bigcup_{k=1}^infty G_i$$
$E_1$ is measurable and so are the $G_i$ as differences of measurable sets so $E$ is measurable. I don't see any incompleteness. The author could have made it more explicit perhaps. But from the start $E=bigcap E_n$ is clearly measurable when all $E_n$ are. (That's what $E_n searrow E$ means.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$E$ is shown to be a measurable set here; from the marked identity:
$$E = E_1 setminus bigcup_{k=1}^infty G_i$$
$E_1$ is measurable and so are the $G_i$ as differences of measurable sets so $E$ is measurable. I don't see any incompleteness. The author could have made it more explicit perhaps. But from the start $E=bigcap E_n$ is clearly measurable when all $E_n$ are. (That's what $E_n searrow E$ means.)
$endgroup$
$E$ is shown to be a measurable set here; from the marked identity:
$$E = E_1 setminus bigcup_{k=1}^infty G_i$$
$E_1$ is measurable and so are the $G_i$ as differences of measurable sets so $E$ is measurable. I don't see any incompleteness. The author could have made it more explicit perhaps. But from the start $E=bigcap E_n$ is clearly measurable when all $E_n$ are. (That's what $E_n searrow E$ means.)
edited Feb 3 at 12:58
answered Feb 3 at 12:53
Henno BrandsmaHenno Brandsma
117k349127
117k349127
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
Sir (ii) part . $E_1=Ecup cup G_k$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:55
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
@SRJ see my edit.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
Sorry Sir. I understood now. $E=E_1cap (cup G_k)^c$
$endgroup$
– SRJ
Feb 3 at 12:58
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
$begingroup$
@SRJ also $E=bigcap_n E_n$, which is easier still.
$endgroup$
– Henno Brandsma
Feb 3 at 12:59
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3098528%2fverification-of-argument-in-corollary-3-3-stein-and-shakarchi-real-analysis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
$m^*(E) = m(E)$ only if $E$ is measurable.
$endgroup$
– Dbchatto67
Feb 3 at 12:56