User Tools

Site Tools


math105-s22:notes:lecture_4

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

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
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== 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 ABA \In B are both measurable, then B\AB \RM A is measurable, and m(B\A)=m(B)m(A)m(B \RM A) = m(B) - m(A).  
 + 
 +We need to show that for any subset ERnE \In \R^n... 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=BAcB \RM A = B \cap A^c.  
 +  * B=A(B\A)B = A \sqcup (B \RM A), a decomposition into measurable subsets.  
 + 
 +==== Lemma 7.4.8: Countable addivitivty ==== 
 +Let {Ej}j=1\{E_j\}_{j=1}^\infty be a countable collection of **disjoint** subsets. Then, their union EE is measurable, and we have 
 + 
 +m(E)=j=1m(Ej) m^*(E) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty m^*(E_j)  
 + 
 +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 EE is measurable from the definition: we want to show for any subset AA, we have 
 +m(A)=m(AE)+m(A\E) m^*(A) = m^*(A \cap E) + m^*(A \RM E)  
 +Suffice to show \geq direction. Let FN=j=1NEjF_N = \sum_{j=1}^N E_j. We have two expressions 
 +  * m(AE)j=1m(AEj)=supN>1j=1Nm(AEj)=supN>1m(AFN)m^*(A \cap E) \leq \sum_{j=1}^\infty m(A \cap E_j) = \sup_{N > 1} \sum_{j=1}^N m^*(A \cap E_j) = \sup_{N > 1} m^*(A \cap F_N)  
 +  * m(A\E)m(A\FN)m^*(A \RM E) \leq m^*(A \RM F_N) for all NN 
 +Hence,  
 +m(A\E)+m(AE)supN>1(m(AFN))+m(A\E))=supN>1(m(AFN))+m(A\FN))=supN>1 m(A)=m(A) m^*(A \RM E) + m^*(A \cap E) \leq \sup_{N > 1} (m^*(A \cap F_N)) + m^*(A \RM E)) = \sup_{N > 1} (m^*(A \cap F_N)) + m^*(A \RM F_N)) = \sup_{N > 1}  m^*(A) = m^*(A)  
 + 
 +OK, that shows EE is measurable. To finish off, we need to show countable addivity 
 +m(E)=j=1m(Ej) m^*(E) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty m^*(E_j)  
 +Since E=EjE = \cup E_j, we have \leq from countable sub-addivity. Then, by monotonicity, we have 
 +m(E)m(FN)=j=1Nm(Ej) m^*(E) \geq m^*(F_N) = \sum_{j=1}^N m^*(E_j)  
 +since this is true for all NN, we can sup over NN, and get  
 +m(E)supNj=1Nm(Ej)=j=1m(Ej) m^*(E) \geq \sup_N \sum_{j=1}^N m^*(E_j) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty m^*(E_j)  
 + 
 +---- 
 + 
 +One slogan is to approximate EE by FNF_N. We want to prove  
 + m(A) m(AE)+m(A\E) m^*(A) \geq  m^*(A \cap E) + m^*(A \RM E)  
 +If we have  
 +  * (1) m(AE)m(AFN)m^*(A \cap E) \leq m^*(A \cap F_N) and  
 +  * (2) m(A\E)m(A\FN)m^*(A \RM E) \leq m^*(A \RM F_N),  
 +then we can write 
 +m(AE)+m(A\E)m(AFN)+m(A\FN)=m(A) m^*(A \cap E) + m^*(A \RM E) \leq m^*(A \cap F_N) + m^*(A \RM F_N) = m^*(A)  
 +but unfortunately, (1) is wrong. One way to remedy this, is to show that (assuming m(A)<m^*(A)< \infty),  for any ϵ>0\epsilon > 0, there exists an NN, such that m(AE)m(AFN)+ϵm^*(A \cap E) \leq m^*(A \cap F_N) + \epsilon holds. (see if you can make this approach work). Another more elegant approach is done as above, using countable subadditivity to get \leq, then introduce a sup\sup to get to finite NN.  
 + 
 +Try to forget this proof, and come up with your own. It might be fun.  
 + 
 +==== Lemma 7.4.9 ==== 
 +The σ\sigma-algebra property.  
 + 
 +Given a countable collection of measurable set Ωj\Omega_j, one need to prove that Ωj\cup \Omega_j and Ωj\cap \Omega_j are measurable.  
 + 
 +We only need to prove the case of Ω=jΩj\Omega = \cup_j \Omega_j, since the \cap operation can be obtained by taking complement and \cup. The hint is to define  
 +ΩN=j=1NΩj \Omega_N = \cup_{j=1}^N \Omega_j 
 +and EN=ΩN\ΩN1E_N = \Omega_N \RM \Omega_{N-1}, then {Ej}\{E_j\} are measurable, mutually disjoint, and jEj=jΩj=Ω\cup_j E_j = \cup_j \Omega_j = \Omega.  
 + 
 +==== 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 UU is open, if for every point xUx \in U, there exists an open ball B(x,r)UB(x,r) \In U.  
 +  * claim: a subset UU is open, iff xU\forall x\in U, there exists an open box BB, such that xBUx \in B \In U.  
 +  * claim: a subset UU is open, iff xU\forall x\in U, there exists an open box BB with rational boundary coordinates, such that xBUx \in B \In 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 EE is measurable, if for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists an open set UEU\supset E, such that m(U\E)<ϵm^*(U \RM E) < \epsilon.  
 + 
 +Can you show that this definition is equivalent to the Caratheodory criterion (the one we had been using)? 
  
  
math105-s22/notes/lecture_4.1642878209.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/01/22 11:03 by pzhou