Re: Sets of measure 0 question...
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:41:26 -0700
From: "Jos Carlos Santos" <jcsantos@xxxxxxxx>
On 12-05-2005 13:20, James wrote:
> > Prove that a set A in R has measure 0 if and only if there
> > exists a countable collection of open intervals the sum of whose
> > lengths is finite such that each point of A belongs to infinitely
> > many of the intervals.
> If A has measure 0, you can find, for each natural n, a countable
> collection A_n of open intervals such that A is a subset of the
> union of the elements of A_n and that the sum of the lengths of the
> elements of A_n is smaller than 1/2^n. You can always do this in such
> a way that no element of an A_n belongs to some A_k with k < n. Now,
> take the union of all A_n's. The sum of their lengths is smaller than
> 1.
Ok, the first part of ==>.
> On the other hand, if x belongs to A, then each A_n has an interval
> that contains x and therefore the union of the A_n's has infinitely
> many elements that contain x.
This is the second part of ==>?
This I don't see. What if A = N, the integers?
In fact, if sum_j |A_j| = k < oo, then for all j in N, |A_j| < k
and every A_j contains at most [A_j] <= k elements of N.
----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sets of measure 0 question...
- From: José Carlos Santos
- Re: Sets of measure 0 question...
- References:
- Sets of measure 0 question...
- From: James
- Re: Sets of measure 0 question...
- From: José Carlos Santos
- Sets of measure 0 question...
- Prev by Date: Re: Problems I have with 1.999...=2
- Next by Date: Re: Derivative of integral question...
- Previous by thread: Re: Sets of measure 0 question...
- Next by thread: Re: Sets of measure 0 question...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading