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 be natural numbers.
- (i)
- Let
and
be sets. Show that
- (ii)
- Let and be Lebesgue measurable sets. Show that is also Lebesgue measurable, and
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 and are open sets, then is an open, Lebesgue measurable set. By Lemma 1.2.11 we can represent both sets as unions of (almost) disjoint boxes with and with . By the additivity of Lebesgue measure we then have:
- (i)
-
Showing that
means
Pick an arbitrary box cover of and of . Notice that the set is a cover for , and a Cartesian product of two boxes is again a box. We thus obtain
- (ii)
-
In the case where one of the quantities is infinite, the statement follows trivially. Thus, assume that both outer measures are finite. Let
be an open cover of
and let
be an open cover of
such that
and
. Recall that a Cartesian product of two open sets
is again open with
. We now look at
. Recall the disjointisation identity
. By the subadditivity we get
We demonstrate that both quantities can get arbitrarily small. Pick an . The trick is to combine covers the box covers of and , similarly for the the second term.
-
Pick an arbitrary finite box cover . For the second part, by the measurability assumption we can find a box cover such that . The key observation is that the set covers . We see that
-
Pick an arbitrary finite box cover . We find such that . Using the same logic as before we get
Combining both approximations we see that . Thus, must be Lebesgue measurable, and we have
Adjusting and taking limits we see that . Combined with the first part of the exercise we obtain the desired result.
-
Comments
-
It is not true that $m(E \times F) = m(U_E \times U_F \backslash (E \times F))$.isn • 2024-12-14