06.09.2021 Views

Measure, Integration & Real Analysis, 2021a

Measure, Integration & Real Analysis, 2021a

Measure, Integration & Real Analysis, 2021a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Section 2D Lebesgue <strong>Measure</strong> 55<br />

We previously defined Lebesgue measure as outer measure restricted to the Borel<br />

sets (see 2.69). The term Lebesgue measure is sometimes used in mathematical<br />

literature with the meaning as we previously defined it and is sometimes used with<br />

the following meaning.<br />

2.73 Definition Lebesgue measure<br />

Lebesgue measure is the measure on (R, L), where L is the σ-algebra of Lebesgue<br />

measurable subsets of R, that assigns to each Lebesgue measurable set its outer<br />

measure.<br />

The two definitions of Lebesgue measure disagree only on the domain of the<br />

measure—is the σ-algebra the Borel sets or the Lebesgue measurable sets? You<br />

may be able to tell which is intended from the context. In this book, the domain is<br />

specified unless it is irrelevant.<br />

If you are reading a mathematics paper and the domain for Lebesgue measure<br />

is not specified, then it probably does not matter whether you use the Borel sets<br />

or the Lebesgue measurable sets (because every Lebesgue measurable set differs<br />

from a Borel set by a set with outer measure 0, and when dealing with measures,<br />

what happens on a set with measure 0 usually does not matter). Because all sets that<br />

arise from the usual operations of analysis are Borel sets, you may want to assume<br />

that Lebesgue measure means outer measure on the Borel sets, unless what you are<br />

reading explicitly states otherwise.<br />

A mathematics paper may also refer to<br />

a measurable subset of R, without further<br />

explanation. Unless some other σ-algebra<br />

is clear from the context, the author probably<br />

means the Borel sets or the Lebesgue<br />

measurable sets. Again, the choice probably<br />

does not matter, but using the Borel<br />

sets can be cleaner and simpler.<br />

The emphasis in some textbooks on<br />

Lebesgue measurable sets instead of<br />

Borel sets probably stems from the<br />

historical development of the subject,<br />

rather than from any common use of<br />

Lebesgue measurable sets that are<br />

not Borel sets.<br />

Lebesgue measure on the Lebesgue measurable sets does have one small advantage<br />

over Lebesgue measure on the Borel sets: every subset of a set with (outer) measure<br />

0 is Lebesgue measurable but is not necessarily a Borel set. However, any natural<br />

process that produces a subset of R will produce a Borel set. Thus this small<br />

advantage does not often come up in practice.<br />

Cantor Set and Cantor Function<br />

Every countable set has outer measure 0 (see 2.4). A reasonable question arises<br />

about whether the converse holds. In other words, is every set with outer measure<br />

0 countable? The Cantor set, which is introduced in this subsection, provides the<br />

answer to this question.<br />

The Cantor set also gives counterexamples to other reasonable conjectures. For<br />

example, Exercise 17 in this section shows that the sum of two sets with Lebesgue<br />

measure 0 can have positive Lebesgue measure.<br />

<strong>Measure</strong>, <strong>Integration</strong> & <strong>Real</strong> <strong>Analysis</strong>, by Sheldon Axler

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!