Exercise 1.4.44 (Borel-Cantelli lemma)

(i)
Give an alternative proof of Borel-Cantelli lemma from Exercise 1.4.43 that does not rely on convergence theorems.
(ii)
Give a counterexample that shows that the Borel-Cantelli lemma can fail if the condition i=1μ(En) < is relaxed to lim nμ(En) = 0.

Answers

(i)
We look closer at the set F of points in X which are contained in infinitely many En’s: F = {x X|#{n : x En} = } = {x X|x En for infinitely many En} = {x X|N n N : x En} = N=1 {x X|n N : x E n} N=1 n=NE n.

Since μ( n=NEn) n=1μ(En) < , we can apply monotone convergence Exercise 1.4.23:

μ(F) μ ( N=1 n=NE n) = lim N n=1E n lim Nμ(EN) = 0

where the last step is a necessity for the series N=1μ(EN) to converge.

(ii)
As for the counterexample, consider (2,B,m) and the shrinking spreading bump sequence n : En := [0,n] × [0, 1 n2 ] .

Then, any point (0,x) 2 is contained in infinitely many of these sets, yet

lim nm(En) = lim n1 n = 0.

User profile picture
2020-09-20 00:00
Comments
  • $\mu(\{(0, x), x \in \mathcal{R}\}) = 0$
    Shinkenjoe2025-01-21