Find a finite union $U$ of open intervals
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to prove the following: If $f$ is a bounded function on $[0,2pi]$ and $Asubset[0,2pi]$ a measurable set, then $forallepsilon>0$ $exists$ a finite union $U$ of open intervals s.t. $|int_Uf-int_Af|<epsilon$.
I have difficulties to show, that there is a $U$ which has such a form. I considered two cases:
- If $(0,pi)subset Asubset[0,pi]$, take $U=(0,2pi)$, then $mu(Asetminus U)=0$ and I can show the claim. (I even don't need that $f$ is bounded for this case?)
- In the other case, I know that $foralldelta>0 exists Usubset[0,2pi]$ open s.t. $Asubset U$ and $mu(Usetminus A)<delta$ because $A$ is measurable. If I take $delta=epsilon/M$ (where $M$ is the bound of $f$) I can show the claim for this $U$. But in general this is an arbitrary union of open intervals? How can I find a finite one?
general-topology measure-theory lebesgue-measure
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to prove the following: If $f$ is a bounded function on $[0,2pi]$ and $Asubset[0,2pi]$ a measurable set, then $forallepsilon>0$ $exists$ a finite union $U$ of open intervals s.t. $|int_Uf-int_Af|<epsilon$.
I have difficulties to show, that there is a $U$ which has such a form. I considered two cases:
- If $(0,pi)subset Asubset[0,pi]$, take $U=(0,2pi)$, then $mu(Asetminus U)=0$ and I can show the claim. (I even don't need that $f$ is bounded for this case?)
- In the other case, I know that $foralldelta>0 exists Usubset[0,2pi]$ open s.t. $Asubset U$ and $mu(Usetminus A)<delta$ because $A$ is measurable. If I take $delta=epsilon/M$ (where $M$ is the bound of $f$) I can show the claim for this $U$. But in general this is an arbitrary union of open intervals? How can I find a finite one?
general-topology measure-theory lebesgue-measure
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I want to prove the following: If $f$ is a bounded function on $[0,2pi]$ and $Asubset[0,2pi]$ a measurable set, then $forallepsilon>0$ $exists$ a finite union $U$ of open intervals s.t. $|int_Uf-int_Af|<epsilon$.
I have difficulties to show, that there is a $U$ which has such a form. I considered two cases:
- If $(0,pi)subset Asubset[0,pi]$, take $U=(0,2pi)$, then $mu(Asetminus U)=0$ and I can show the claim. (I even don't need that $f$ is bounded for this case?)
- In the other case, I know that $foralldelta>0 exists Usubset[0,2pi]$ open s.t. $Asubset U$ and $mu(Usetminus A)<delta$ because $A$ is measurable. If I take $delta=epsilon/M$ (where $M$ is the bound of $f$) I can show the claim for this $U$. But in general this is an arbitrary union of open intervals? How can I find a finite one?
general-topology measure-theory lebesgue-measure
I want to prove the following: If $f$ is a bounded function on $[0,2pi]$ and $Asubset[0,2pi]$ a measurable set, then $forallepsilon>0$ $exists$ a finite union $U$ of open intervals s.t. $|int_Uf-int_Af|<epsilon$.
I have difficulties to show, that there is a $U$ which has such a form. I considered two cases:
- If $(0,pi)subset Asubset[0,pi]$, take $U=(0,2pi)$, then $mu(Asetminus U)=0$ and I can show the claim. (I even don't need that $f$ is bounded for this case?)
- In the other case, I know that $foralldelta>0 exists Usubset[0,2pi]$ open s.t. $Asubset U$ and $mu(Usetminus A)<delta$ because $A$ is measurable. If I take $delta=epsilon/M$ (where $M$ is the bound of $f$) I can show the claim for this $U$. But in general this is an arbitrary union of open intervals? How can I find a finite one?
general-topology measure-theory lebesgue-measure
asked Aug 7 at 15:13
mathstackuser
61011
61011
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that it would be easier to show this by regularity of the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. You know that since $f$ is bounded, that there exists $delta>0$ such that if $lambda(E)<delta$ then $int_E vert fvert< frac14 epsilon$. By regularity there exists a closed subset $Fsubseteq A$ such that $lambda(Asetminus F)< fracdelta2 $. $F$ is a compact set, hence for the open cover $ (x-fracdelta2),x+fracdelta2 _xin F $, there exists a finite subcover of open intervals, and define it's union $U$. The measure of $UDelta A$ will be less than $delta$, hence by the triangle inequality you will obtain what you need.
Approximating $A$ by a closed subset (which is also compact) is the additional step you need.
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that it would be easier to show this by regularity of the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. You know that since $f$ is bounded, that there exists $delta>0$ such that if $lambda(E)<delta$ then $int_E vert fvert< frac14 epsilon$. By regularity there exists a closed subset $Fsubseteq A$ such that $lambda(Asetminus F)< fracdelta2 $. $F$ is a compact set, hence for the open cover $ (x-fracdelta2),x+fracdelta2 _xin F $, there exists a finite subcover of open intervals, and define it's union $U$. The measure of $UDelta A$ will be less than $delta$, hence by the triangle inequality you will obtain what you need.
Approximating $A$ by a closed subset (which is also compact) is the additional step you need.
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that it would be easier to show this by regularity of the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. You know that since $f$ is bounded, that there exists $delta>0$ such that if $lambda(E)<delta$ then $int_E vert fvert< frac14 epsilon$. By regularity there exists a closed subset $Fsubseteq A$ such that $lambda(Asetminus F)< fracdelta2 $. $F$ is a compact set, hence for the open cover $ (x-fracdelta2),x+fracdelta2 _xin F $, there exists a finite subcover of open intervals, and define it's union $U$. The measure of $UDelta A$ will be less than $delta$, hence by the triangle inequality you will obtain what you need.
Approximating $A$ by a closed subset (which is also compact) is the additional step you need.
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It seems to me that it would be easier to show this by regularity of the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. You know that since $f$ is bounded, that there exists $delta>0$ such that if $lambda(E)<delta$ then $int_E vert fvert< frac14 epsilon$. By regularity there exists a closed subset $Fsubseteq A$ such that $lambda(Asetminus F)< fracdelta2 $. $F$ is a compact set, hence for the open cover $ (x-fracdelta2),x+fracdelta2 _xin F $, there exists a finite subcover of open intervals, and define it's union $U$. The measure of $UDelta A$ will be less than $delta$, hence by the triangle inequality you will obtain what you need.
Approximating $A$ by a closed subset (which is also compact) is the additional step you need.
It seems to me that it would be easier to show this by regularity of the Lebesgue measure $lambda$. You know that since $f$ is bounded, that there exists $delta>0$ such that if $lambda(E)<delta$ then $int_E vert fvert< frac14 epsilon$. By regularity there exists a closed subset $Fsubseteq A$ such that $lambda(Asetminus F)< fracdelta2 $. $F$ is a compact set, hence for the open cover $ (x-fracdelta2),x+fracdelta2 _xin F $, there exists a finite subcover of open intervals, and define it's union $U$. The measure of $UDelta A$ will be less than $delta$, hence by the triangle inequality you will obtain what you need.
Approximating $A$ by a closed subset (which is also compact) is the additional step you need.
answered Aug 7 at 15:32
Keen-ameteur
644213
644213
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
add a comment |Â
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
+1...Based on some or the Q's I've seen on this site, there seems to be a modern teaching style in measure theory that avoids inner regularity and inner measure.
â DanielWainfleet
Aug 8 at 2:13
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
I still have some questions to your answer: How can I see, that $Usubset [0,2pi]$? and how can I proceed with the triangle equality? I have difficulties to express $|int_Uf-int_Af|$ in terms of the symmetric difference
â mathstackuser
Aug 10 at 8:01
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
$U$ is not necessarily a subset of $[0,2pi]$ but $A$ could be $[0,2pi]$ and the for this case $F=A$, and every open cover of $A$ would strictly contain $[0,2pi]$. But you can extend $f$ to a bounded function on $mathbbR$ by $tildef=fcdot chi_[0,2pi]$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:06
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
We can write: $vert int_Utildef-int_A tildefvert=Bigvert -int_Asetminus U tildef+int_Usetminus Atilde fBigvert leq int_UDelta A vert tildefvert oversetlambda(UDelta A)<delta<epsilon$.
â Keen-ameteur
Aug 11 at 8:11
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875079%2ffind-a-finite-union-u-of-open-intervals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password