Next revision
|
Previous revision
|
math105-s22:notes:lecture_4 [2022/01/22 11:03] pzhou created |
math105-s22:notes:lecture_4 [2022/01/27 14:29] (current) pzhou |
====== Lecture 4 ====== | ====== Lecture 4 ====== |
| {{ :math105-s22:notes:note_jan_27_2022_math105_4.pdf |note}}, [[https://berkeley.zoom.us/rec/share/FpG9GNaABIipr523cZa_36y6w6O9We_zWhb-llmVIusvAyLlFmVqtiBUpjp9Q2hZ.-dvCEBgnfAdGXV7e | video ]] |
| |
Lemma 7.4.8 - Lemma 7.4.11 | ==== Cor 7.4.7 ==== |
| If A⊂B are both measurable, then B\A is measurable, and m(B\A)=m(B)−m(A). |
| |
| We need to show that for any subset E⊂Rn... wait a second, do we really need to go by definitions again? After all these preparations, we should be able to exploit our sweat. Hint |
| * B\A=B∩Ac. |
| * B=A⊔(B\A), a decomposition into measurable subsets. |
| |
| ==== Lemma 7.4.8: Countable addivitivty ==== |
| Let {Ej}j=1∞ be a countable collection of **disjoint** subsets. Then, their union E is measurable, and we have |
| |
| m∗(E)=j=1∑∞m∗(Ej) |
| |
| Proof: Tao's proof is really clever, let's first try to go through the proof, then discuss how we can come up with it ourselves. |
| |
| First, we start by showing E is measurable from the definition: we want to show for any subset A, we have |
| m∗(A)=m∗(A∩E)+m∗(A\E) |
| Suffice to show ≥ direction. Let FN=∑j=1NEj. We have two expressions |
| * m∗(A∩E)≤∑j=1∞m(A∩Ej)=supN>1∑j=1Nm∗(A∩Ej)=supN>1m∗(A∩FN) |
| * m∗(A\E)≤m∗(A\FN) for all N |
| Hence, |
| m∗(A\E)+m∗(A∩E)≤N>1sup(m∗(A∩FN))+m∗(A\E))=N>1sup(m∗(A∩FN))+m∗(A\FN))=N>1sup m∗(A)=m∗(A) |
| |
| OK, that shows E is measurable. To finish off, we need to show countable addivity |
| m∗(E)=j=1∑∞m∗(Ej) |
| Since E=∪Ej, we have ≤ from countable sub-addivity. Then, by monotonicity, we have |
| m∗(E)≥m∗(FN)=j=1∑Nm∗(Ej) |
| since this is true for all N, we can sup over N, and get |
| m∗(E)≥Nsupj=1∑Nm∗(Ej)=j=1∑∞m∗(Ej) |
| |
| ---- |
| |
| One slogan is to approximate E by FN. We want to prove |
| m∗(A)≥ m∗(A∩E)+m∗(A\E) |
| If we have |
| * (1) m∗(A∩E)≤m∗(A∩FN) and |
| * (2) m∗(A\E)≤m∗(A\FN), |
| then we can write |
| m∗(A∩E)+m∗(A\E)≤m∗(A∩FN)+m∗(A\FN)=m∗(A) |
| but unfortunately, (1) is wrong. One way to remedy this, is to show that (assuming m∗(A)<∞), for any ϵ>0, there exists an N, such that m∗(A∩E)≤m∗(A∩FN)+ϵ holds. (see if you can make this approach work). Another more elegant approach is done as above, using countable subadditivity to get ≤, then introduce a sup to get to finite N. |
| |
| Try to forget this proof, and come up with your own. It might be fun. |
| |
| ==== Lemma 7.4.9 ==== |
| The σ-algebra property. |
| |
| Given a countable collection of measurable set Ωj, one need to prove that ∪Ωj and ∩Ωj are measurable. |
| |
| We only need to prove the case of Ω=∪jΩj, since the ∩ operation can be obtained by taking complement and ∪. The hint is to define |
| ΩN=∪j=1NΩj |
| and EN=ΩN\ΩN−1, then {Ej} are measurable, mutually disjoint, and ∪jEj=∪jΩj=Ω. |
| |
| ==== Lemma 7.4.10 ==== |
| Every open set can be written as a finite or countable union of open boxes. |
| |
| I will leave this as discussion problem. |
| * A subset U is open, if for every point x∈U, there exists an open ball B(x,r)⊂U. |
| * claim: a subset U is open, iff ∀x∈U, there exists an open box B, such that x∈B⊂U. |
| * claim: a subset U is open, iff ∀x∈U, there exists an open box B with rational boundary coordinates, such that x∈B⊂U. |
| * There are countably many open boxes with rational boundary coordinates. |
| |
| ==== Lemma 7.4.11 ==== |
| All open sets are measurable. |
| |
| Since open boxes are measurable, and countable union of measurable sets are measurable. |
| |
| |
| ==== Discussion Problem ==== |
| An alternative definition for measurable set is the following: |
| |
| === Def 2 === |
| A subset E is measurable, if for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists an open set U⊃E, such that m∗(U\E)<ϵ. |
| |
| Can you show that this definition is equivalent to the Caratheodory criterion (the one we had been using)? |
| |
| |