Homepage › Solution manuals › Terence Tao › An Introduction to Measure Theory › Exercise 1.2.13 (Dominated convergence theorem for measurable sets)
Exercise 1.2.13 (Dominated convergence theorem for measurable sets)
Let be a sequence of sets in which converges pointwise to .
- (i)
- Show that if are all Lebesgue measurable, then so is .
- (ii)
- (Dominated Convergence) Suppose that are all contained in some Lebesgue measurable set of finite measure. Then converges to .
Give a counterexample to show that the theorem fails if the are not contained in a set of finite measure.
Answers
Our goal is to demonstrate that can be represented as a combination of countable unions/intersections of ’s. We notice two facts:
- (i)
- (Constant tail of the sequence) First notice that due to the binary nature of
the pointwise
convergence
is equivalent to the condition that the sequence stabilises
after
some .
Pick an arbitrary . Notice that by the binary nature of the pointwise convergence condition implies that we only have finite number of ’s such that ; otherwise we could build a limit inferior - a contradiction. In other words, we can find a such that after this element the sequence stabilises . Conversely, for if there is an after which the sequence eventually becomes a constant -sequence, then we must have by the limit assumption.
Thus, using the first criterion we can represent as - (ii)
- (Limit point) Another equivalent formulation is that
is the only limit point
of , i.e., we have the
unique condition
such
that .
Thus, using this second creterion we write
Thus, (in any of the above two examples) we have managed to represent
as a
countable union of countable intersections of measurable sets; by Lemma 1.1.13
is
measurable as well.
These both representation help us derive the Dominated Convergence Theorem from the Monotone Convergence Theorem. In the first case notice that due to we can use the upward convergence
In the second case, due to we can use the downward convergence
Cobining both facts we obtain
Note that the inverse counterexample from Exercise 1.2.11 (removing blocks from countably by steps) is also applicable here.