Lebesgue measurable “sparse” set.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Recently, out of curiosity, I looked up the list of questions for Princeton generals, and one caught my attention:



Can you construct a measurable set on the interval $[0; 1]$ such that its intersection
with any subinterval of $[0; 1]$ has measure neither $0$ nor equal to the measure of
the whole subinterval? If so, is the indicator (characteristic) function of that set Riemann
integrable.



Second part of the question is relatively easy to answer, but first I was not able to figure out.



So the final question is: how can one construct such a set?










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Recently, out of curiosity, I looked up the list of questions for Princeton generals, and one caught my attention:



    Can you construct a measurable set on the interval $[0; 1]$ such that its intersection
    with any subinterval of $[0; 1]$ has measure neither $0$ nor equal to the measure of
    the whole subinterval? If so, is the indicator (characteristic) function of that set Riemann
    integrable.



    Second part of the question is relatively easy to answer, but first I was not able to figure out.



    So the final question is: how can one construct such a set?










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Recently, out of curiosity, I looked up the list of questions for Princeton generals, and one caught my attention:



      Can you construct a measurable set on the interval $[0; 1]$ such that its intersection
      with any subinterval of $[0; 1]$ has measure neither $0$ nor equal to the measure of
      the whole subinterval? If so, is the indicator (characteristic) function of that set Riemann
      integrable.



      Second part of the question is relatively easy to answer, but first I was not able to figure out.



      So the final question is: how can one construct such a set?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Recently, out of curiosity, I looked up the list of questions for Princeton generals, and one caught my attention:



      Can you construct a measurable set on the interval $[0; 1]$ such that its intersection
      with any subinterval of $[0; 1]$ has measure neither $0$ nor equal to the measure of
      the whole subinterval? If so, is the indicator (characteristic) function of that set Riemann
      integrable.



      Second part of the question is relatively easy to answer, but first I was not able to figure out.



      So the final question is: how can one construct such a set?







      measure-theory lebesgue-measure






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Oct 17 '16 at 20:03









      user1008646

      1826




      1826










      asked Jun 8 '16 at 16:56









      Sergey Rusakov

      8116




      8116




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes, such a set exists. Walter Rudin has constructed one in the following paper:



          Rudin, W. "Well-distributed measurable sets." The American Mathematical Monthly 90.1 (1983): 41-42.



          In his own words:




          Theorem. There is a measurable set $Asubseteq I=[0,1]$ such that
          $$0<m(Acap V)<m(V)$$
          for every nonempty open set $Vsubseteq I$.



          Proof. Let CTDP mean: Compact Totally Disconnected subset of $I$, having Positive measure. Let $I_n$ be an enumeration of all segments in $I$ whose endpoints are rational. Construct sequences $A_n$, $B_n$ of CTDP's as follows:



          Start with disjoint CTDP's $A_1$ and $B_1$ in $I_1$.



          Once $A_1,B_1,ldots,A_n-1,B_n-1$ are chosen, their union $C_n$ is CTD, hence $I_nsetminus C_n$ contains a nonempty segment $J$, and $J$ contains a pair $A_n,B_n$ of disjoint CTDP's. Continue in this way, and put
          $$A=bigcup_n=1^infty A_n.$$
          If $Vsubseteq I$ is open and nonempty, then $I_nsubseteq V$ for some $n$, hence $A_nsubseteq V$ and $B_nsubseteq V$. Thus
          $$0<m(A_n)leq m(Acap V)<m(Acap V)+m(B_n)leq m(V);$$
          the last inequality holds because $A$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. Done.







          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
            – Qiyu Wen
            Jun 9 '16 at 15:35










          • @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
            – Spenser
            Jun 9 '16 at 17:50










          • @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
            – Axion004
            Sep 9 at 20:48










          • In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
            – D. Brogan
            Sep 9 at 22:18











          • @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
            – Spenser
            Sep 10 at 6:34










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1818710%2flebesgue-measurable-sparse-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes, such a set exists. Walter Rudin has constructed one in the following paper:



          Rudin, W. "Well-distributed measurable sets." The American Mathematical Monthly 90.1 (1983): 41-42.



          In his own words:




          Theorem. There is a measurable set $Asubseteq I=[0,1]$ such that
          $$0<m(Acap V)<m(V)$$
          for every nonempty open set $Vsubseteq I$.



          Proof. Let CTDP mean: Compact Totally Disconnected subset of $I$, having Positive measure. Let $I_n$ be an enumeration of all segments in $I$ whose endpoints are rational. Construct sequences $A_n$, $B_n$ of CTDP's as follows:



          Start with disjoint CTDP's $A_1$ and $B_1$ in $I_1$.



          Once $A_1,B_1,ldots,A_n-1,B_n-1$ are chosen, their union $C_n$ is CTD, hence $I_nsetminus C_n$ contains a nonempty segment $J$, and $J$ contains a pair $A_n,B_n$ of disjoint CTDP's. Continue in this way, and put
          $$A=bigcup_n=1^infty A_n.$$
          If $Vsubseteq I$ is open and nonempty, then $I_nsubseteq V$ for some $n$, hence $A_nsubseteq V$ and $B_nsubseteq V$. Thus
          $$0<m(A_n)leq m(Acap V)<m(Acap V)+m(B_n)leq m(V);$$
          the last inequality holds because $A$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. Done.







          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
            – Qiyu Wen
            Jun 9 '16 at 15:35










          • @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
            – Spenser
            Jun 9 '16 at 17:50










          • @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
            – Axion004
            Sep 9 at 20:48










          • In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
            – D. Brogan
            Sep 9 at 22:18











          • @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
            – Spenser
            Sep 10 at 6:34














          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          Yes, such a set exists. Walter Rudin has constructed one in the following paper:



          Rudin, W. "Well-distributed measurable sets." The American Mathematical Monthly 90.1 (1983): 41-42.



          In his own words:




          Theorem. There is a measurable set $Asubseteq I=[0,1]$ such that
          $$0<m(Acap V)<m(V)$$
          for every nonempty open set $Vsubseteq I$.



          Proof. Let CTDP mean: Compact Totally Disconnected subset of $I$, having Positive measure. Let $I_n$ be an enumeration of all segments in $I$ whose endpoints are rational. Construct sequences $A_n$, $B_n$ of CTDP's as follows:



          Start with disjoint CTDP's $A_1$ and $B_1$ in $I_1$.



          Once $A_1,B_1,ldots,A_n-1,B_n-1$ are chosen, their union $C_n$ is CTD, hence $I_nsetminus C_n$ contains a nonempty segment $J$, and $J$ contains a pair $A_n,B_n$ of disjoint CTDP's. Continue in this way, and put
          $$A=bigcup_n=1^infty A_n.$$
          If $Vsubseteq I$ is open and nonempty, then $I_nsubseteq V$ for some $n$, hence $A_nsubseteq V$ and $B_nsubseteq V$. Thus
          $$0<m(A_n)leq m(Acap V)<m(Acap V)+m(B_n)leq m(V);$$
          the last inequality holds because $A$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. Done.







          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
            – Qiyu Wen
            Jun 9 '16 at 15:35










          • @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
            – Spenser
            Jun 9 '16 at 17:50










          • @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
            – Axion004
            Sep 9 at 20:48










          • In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
            – D. Brogan
            Sep 9 at 22:18











          • @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
            – Spenser
            Sep 10 at 6:34












          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted






          Yes, such a set exists. Walter Rudin has constructed one in the following paper:



          Rudin, W. "Well-distributed measurable sets." The American Mathematical Monthly 90.1 (1983): 41-42.



          In his own words:




          Theorem. There is a measurable set $Asubseteq I=[0,1]$ such that
          $$0<m(Acap V)<m(V)$$
          for every nonempty open set $Vsubseteq I$.



          Proof. Let CTDP mean: Compact Totally Disconnected subset of $I$, having Positive measure. Let $I_n$ be an enumeration of all segments in $I$ whose endpoints are rational. Construct sequences $A_n$, $B_n$ of CTDP's as follows:



          Start with disjoint CTDP's $A_1$ and $B_1$ in $I_1$.



          Once $A_1,B_1,ldots,A_n-1,B_n-1$ are chosen, their union $C_n$ is CTD, hence $I_nsetminus C_n$ contains a nonempty segment $J$, and $J$ contains a pair $A_n,B_n$ of disjoint CTDP's. Continue in this way, and put
          $$A=bigcup_n=1^infty A_n.$$
          If $Vsubseteq I$ is open and nonempty, then $I_nsubseteq V$ for some $n$, hence $A_nsubseteq V$ and $B_nsubseteq V$. Thus
          $$0<m(A_n)leq m(Acap V)<m(Acap V)+m(B_n)leq m(V);$$
          the last inequality holds because $A$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. Done.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          Yes, such a set exists. Walter Rudin has constructed one in the following paper:



          Rudin, W. "Well-distributed measurable sets." The American Mathematical Monthly 90.1 (1983): 41-42.



          In his own words:




          Theorem. There is a measurable set $Asubseteq I=[0,1]$ such that
          $$0<m(Acap V)<m(V)$$
          for every nonempty open set $Vsubseteq I$.



          Proof. Let CTDP mean: Compact Totally Disconnected subset of $I$, having Positive measure. Let $I_n$ be an enumeration of all segments in $I$ whose endpoints are rational. Construct sequences $A_n$, $B_n$ of CTDP's as follows:



          Start with disjoint CTDP's $A_1$ and $B_1$ in $I_1$.



          Once $A_1,B_1,ldots,A_n-1,B_n-1$ are chosen, their union $C_n$ is CTD, hence $I_nsetminus C_n$ contains a nonempty segment $J$, and $J$ contains a pair $A_n,B_n$ of disjoint CTDP's. Continue in this way, and put
          $$A=bigcup_n=1^infty A_n.$$
          If $Vsubseteq I$ is open and nonempty, then $I_nsubseteq V$ for some $n$, hence $A_nsubseteq V$ and $B_nsubseteq V$. Thus
          $$0<m(A_n)leq m(Acap V)<m(Acap V)+m(B_n)leq m(V);$$
          the last inequality holds because $A$ and $B_n$ are disjoint. Done.








          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Sep 10 at 6:34

























          answered Jun 9 '16 at 7:29









          Spenser

          14k33276




          14k33276











          • Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
            – Qiyu Wen
            Jun 9 '16 at 15:35










          • @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
            – Spenser
            Jun 9 '16 at 17:50










          • @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
            – Axion004
            Sep 9 at 20:48










          • In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
            – D. Brogan
            Sep 9 at 22:18











          • @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
            – Spenser
            Sep 10 at 6:34
















          • Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
            – Qiyu Wen
            Jun 9 '16 at 15:35










          • @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
            – Spenser
            Jun 9 '16 at 17:50










          • @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
            – Axion004
            Sep 9 at 20:48










          • In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
            – D. Brogan
            Sep 9 at 22:18











          • @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
            – Spenser
            Sep 10 at 6:34















          Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
          – Qiyu Wen
          Jun 9 '16 at 15:35




          Thanks. I was never able to solve this problem in his RCA.
          – Qiyu Wen
          Jun 9 '16 at 15:35












          @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
          – Spenser
          Jun 9 '16 at 17:50




          @QiyuWen Me too, I struggled so much on that one!
          – Spenser
          Jun 9 '16 at 17:50












          @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
          – Axion004
          Sep 9 at 20:48




          @Spenser: There is a mistake in your proof. Requesting an edit.
          – Axion004
          Sep 9 at 20:48












          In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
          – D. Brogan
          Sep 9 at 22:18





          In the final inequality, $m(Acap B)+m(B_n)$ should read $m(Acap V)+m(B_n)$
          – D. Brogan
          Sep 9 at 22:18













          @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
          – Spenser
          Sep 10 at 6:34




          @D.Brogan You are right; I changed it.
          – Spenser
          Sep 10 at 6:34

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1818710%2flebesgue-measurable-sparse-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          1st Magritte Awards