Homepage Solution manuals Terence Tao An Introduction to Measure Theory Exercise 1.2.22 (Lebesgue measure and Cartesian products)

Exercise 1.2.22 (Lebesgue measure and Cartesian products)

Let d,d be natural numbers.

(i)
Let E d and F d be sets. Show that (md+d )(E × F) (md)(E) × (md )(F).

(ii)
Let E d and F d be Lebesgue measurable sets. Show that E × F is also Lebesgue measurable, and md+d (E × F) = md(E) × md (F).

Answers

We verify the definitions. Recall that we have already proven this theorem for elementary sets in Exercise 1.1.4 (Elementary measure of a product is product of elementary measures). It is not hard to generalise this result to open sets as well. In other words, if U and V are open sets, then U × V is an open, Lebesgue measurable set. By Lemma 1.2.11 we can represent both sets as unions of (almost) disjoint boxes U = i = 1 B i with m ( U ) = i = 1 | B i | and V = i = 1 C i with m ( V ) = i = 1 | C i | . By the additivity of Lebesgue measure we then have:

m ( U × V ) = m ( i = 1 B i × j = 1 B j ) = m ( i = 1 j = 1 B j × C j ) = i = 1 j = 1 | B j | × | C j | = m ( U ) × m ( V ) .

(i)
Showing that ( m d + d ) ( E × F ) ( m d ) ( E ) × ( m d ) ( F ) means inf { n = 1 | B n | : B n  are boxes E × F n = 1 B n } inf { n = 1 | C n | : C n  are boxes E n = 1 C n } × inf { n = 1 | D n | : D n  are boxes F n = 1 F n } .

Pick an arbitrary box cover n = 1 C n of E and n = 1 D n of F . Notice that the set n = 1 C n × n = 1 D n = n = 1 m = 1 C n × D m is a cover for E × F , and a Cartesian product of two boxes is again a box. We thus obtain

( n , m ) 2 | C n × D m | n = 1 | C n | × m = 1 | D m |

(ii)
In the case where one of the quantities is infinite, the statement follows trivially. Thus, assume that both outer measures are finite. Let U E be an open cover of E and let U F be an open cover of F such that m ( U E E ) 𝜖 and m ( U F F ) 𝜖 . Recall that a Cartesian product of two open sets U E × U F is again open with E × F U E × U F . We now look at ( U E × U F ) ( E × F ) . Recall the disjointisation identity ( U E × U F ) ( E × F ) = [ U E × ( U F F ) ] [ ( U E E ) × F ] . By the subadditivity we get m ( ( U E × U F ) ( E × F ) ) m ( U E × ( U F F ) ) + m ( ( U E E ) × F ) .

We demonstrate that both quantities can get arbitrarily small. Pick an 𝜖 > 0 . The trick is to combine covers the box covers of U E and U F F , similarly for the the second term.

  • Pick an arbitrary finite box cover n = 1 B n U E . For the second part, by the measurability assumption we can find a box cover U F F n = 1 K n such that n = 1 | K n | 𝜖 2 n = 1 | B n | . The key observation is that the set n = 1 B n × n = 1 K n = ( n , m ) 2 B n × K n covers U E × ( U F F ) . We see that

    ( n , m ) 2 | B n | × | K n | n = 1 | B n | × n = 1 | K n | 𝜖 2

  • Pick an arbitrary finite box cover n = 1 C n F . We find U F F n = 1 L n such that n = 1 | L n | 𝜖 2 n = 1 | B n | . Using the same logic as before we get

    ( n , m ) 2 | C n | × | L n | n = 1 | C n | × n = 1 | L n | 𝜖 2

Combining both approximations we see that m ( ( U E × U F ) ( E × F ) ) 𝜖 . Thus, E × F must be Lebesgue measurable, and we have

m ( E × F ) = m ( U E × U F ) m ( ( U E × U F ) ( E × F ) ) m ( U E × U F ) 𝜖 = m ( U E ) m ( U F ) 𝜖 = ( m ( E ) 𝜖 ) ( m ( F ) 𝜖 ) 𝜖 = m ( E ) m ( F ) 𝜖 [ m ( E ) + m ( F ) + 1 ]

Adjusting 𝜖 and taking limits 𝜖 0 we see that m ( E × F ) m ( E ) × m ( F ) . Combined with the first part of the exercise we obtain the desired result.

User profile picture
2020-05-30 00:00
Comments
  • It is not true that $m(E \times F) = m(U_E \times U_F \backslash (E \times F))$.
    isn2024-12-14