What is the most elegant known proof of $m^*(A) leq sum_{n} m^*(A_n)$ when $A = bigcup_n A_n$?












1












$begingroup$


Let $A = bigcup_{n in I} A_n subset Bbb{R}^k$ where $I$ is an arbitrary index set. Define the Lebesgue outer measure by




$m^*(A) := inf { sum_{n} text{vol}(I_n) : I_n, n geq 1$ are each any type of interval and $A subset bigcup_n I_n }$.




Then how can we prove $m^*(A) leq sum_n m^*(A_n)$ elegantly. The proof in my book is kind of hand-wavy and very complicated for something intuitively obvious.



Also this is the first property of such objects other than $m^*$ is monotonic: $A subset B implies m^*(A) leq m^*(B)$. First properties should be easily proven or something is wrong with the proof technique! It has to be fixed.



So I am on the search for an elegant proof. Maybe Galois connections?



The idea is that if I am successful, I can apply the proof technique to other such over-complicated examples I encounter.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure outer-measure







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 4:33
















1












$begingroup$


Let $A = bigcup_{n in I} A_n subset Bbb{R}^k$ where $I$ is an arbitrary index set. Define the Lebesgue outer measure by




$m^*(A) := inf { sum_{n} text{vol}(I_n) : I_n, n geq 1$ are each any type of interval and $A subset bigcup_n I_n }$.




Then how can we prove $m^*(A) leq sum_n m^*(A_n)$ elegantly. The proof in my book is kind of hand-wavy and very complicated for something intuitively obvious.



Also this is the first property of such objects other than $m^*$ is monotonic: $A subset B implies m^*(A) leq m^*(B)$. First properties should be easily proven or something is wrong with the proof technique! It has to be fixed.



So I am on the search for an elegant proof. Maybe Galois connections?



The idea is that if I am successful, I can apply the proof technique to other such over-complicated examples I encounter.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure outer-measure







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 4:33














1












1








1


0



$begingroup$


Let $A = bigcup_{n in I} A_n subset Bbb{R}^k$ where $I$ is an arbitrary index set. Define the Lebesgue outer measure by




$m^*(A) := inf { sum_{n} text{vol}(I_n) : I_n, n geq 1$ are each any type of interval and $A subset bigcup_n I_n }$.




Then how can we prove $m^*(A) leq sum_n m^*(A_n)$ elegantly. The proof in my book is kind of hand-wavy and very complicated for something intuitively obvious.



Also this is the first property of such objects other than $m^*$ is monotonic: $A subset B implies m^*(A) leq m^*(B)$. First properties should be easily proven or something is wrong with the proof technique! It has to be fixed.



So I am on the search for an elegant proof. Maybe Galois connections?



The idea is that if I am successful, I can apply the proof technique to other such over-complicated examples I encounter.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure outer-measure







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let $A = bigcup_{n in I} A_n subset Bbb{R}^k$ where $I$ is an arbitrary index set. Define the Lebesgue outer measure by




$m^*(A) := inf { sum_{n} text{vol}(I_n) : I_n, n geq 1$ are each any type of interval and $A subset bigcup_n I_n }$.




Then how can we prove $m^*(A) leq sum_n m^*(A_n)$ elegantly. The proof in my book is kind of hand-wavy and very complicated for something intuitively obvious.



Also this is the first property of such objects other than $m^*$ is monotonic: $A subset B implies m^*(A) leq m^*(B)$. First properties should be easily proven or something is wrong with the proof technique! It has to be fixed.



So I am on the search for an elegant proof. Maybe Galois connections?



The idea is that if I am successful, I can apply the proof technique to other such over-complicated examples I encounter.






measure-theory lebesgue-measure outer-measure




measure-theory lebesgue-measure outer-measure






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 12 at 2:23









David C. Ullrich

60k43994




60k43994










asked Jan 12 at 1:41









Hermit with AdjointHermit with Adjoint

9,11552458




9,11552458








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 4:33














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 4:33








1




1




$begingroup$
Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 12 at 4:33




$begingroup$
Note that, for uncountable $I$, the inequality is not true.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 12 at 4:33










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

(This answer assumes that $I$ is countable)



This is a case for the $epsilon/2^n$ trick, in combination with the "give yourself an epsilon of room" trick. Once we've internalized these tricks the proof seems straightforward.



Let $epsilon > 0$. For each positive integer $n$, let ${I_{nj}}$ be a countable collection of intervals such that $A_n subset cup_j I_{nj}$ and
$$sum_{j} |I_{nj}| leq m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n}.
$$
Then



$$
A subset cup_{n,j} I_{nj}
$$
and



begin{align}
m^*(A) &leq sum_{n,j} |I_{nj}| \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty sum_{j=1}^infty |I_{nj}| \
&leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n} \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + underbrace{sum_{n=1}^infty frac{epsilon}{2^n}}_epsilon.
end{align}



This shows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + epsilon
$$
for any $epsilon > 0$. It follows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n).
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 4:11











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3070521%2fwhat-is-the-most-elegant-known-proof-of-ma-leq-sum-n-ma-n-when-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3












$begingroup$

(This answer assumes that $I$ is countable)



This is a case for the $epsilon/2^n$ trick, in combination with the "give yourself an epsilon of room" trick. Once we've internalized these tricks the proof seems straightforward.



Let $epsilon > 0$. For each positive integer $n$, let ${I_{nj}}$ be a countable collection of intervals such that $A_n subset cup_j I_{nj}$ and
$$sum_{j} |I_{nj}| leq m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n}.
$$
Then



$$
A subset cup_{n,j} I_{nj}
$$
and



begin{align}
m^*(A) &leq sum_{n,j} |I_{nj}| \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty sum_{j=1}^infty |I_{nj}| \
&leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n} \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + underbrace{sum_{n=1}^infty frac{epsilon}{2^n}}_epsilon.
end{align}



This shows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + epsilon
$$
for any $epsilon > 0$. It follows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n).
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 4:11
















3












$begingroup$

(This answer assumes that $I$ is countable)



This is a case for the $epsilon/2^n$ trick, in combination with the "give yourself an epsilon of room" trick. Once we've internalized these tricks the proof seems straightforward.



Let $epsilon > 0$. For each positive integer $n$, let ${I_{nj}}$ be a countable collection of intervals such that $A_n subset cup_j I_{nj}$ and
$$sum_{j} |I_{nj}| leq m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n}.
$$
Then



$$
A subset cup_{n,j} I_{nj}
$$
and



begin{align}
m^*(A) &leq sum_{n,j} |I_{nj}| \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty sum_{j=1}^infty |I_{nj}| \
&leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n} \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + underbrace{sum_{n=1}^infty frac{epsilon}{2^n}}_epsilon.
end{align}



This shows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + epsilon
$$
for any $epsilon > 0$. It follows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n).
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 4:11














3












3








3





$begingroup$

(This answer assumes that $I$ is countable)



This is a case for the $epsilon/2^n$ trick, in combination with the "give yourself an epsilon of room" trick. Once we've internalized these tricks the proof seems straightforward.



Let $epsilon > 0$. For each positive integer $n$, let ${I_{nj}}$ be a countable collection of intervals such that $A_n subset cup_j I_{nj}$ and
$$sum_{j} |I_{nj}| leq m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n}.
$$
Then



$$
A subset cup_{n,j} I_{nj}
$$
and



begin{align}
m^*(A) &leq sum_{n,j} |I_{nj}| \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty sum_{j=1}^infty |I_{nj}| \
&leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n} \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + underbrace{sum_{n=1}^infty frac{epsilon}{2^n}}_epsilon.
end{align}



This shows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + epsilon
$$
for any $epsilon > 0$. It follows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n).
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



(This answer assumes that $I$ is countable)



This is a case for the $epsilon/2^n$ trick, in combination with the "give yourself an epsilon of room" trick. Once we've internalized these tricks the proof seems straightforward.



Let $epsilon > 0$. For each positive integer $n$, let ${I_{nj}}$ be a countable collection of intervals such that $A_n subset cup_j I_{nj}$ and
$$sum_{j} |I_{nj}| leq m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n}.
$$
Then



$$
A subset cup_{n,j} I_{nj}
$$
and



begin{align}
m^*(A) &leq sum_{n,j} |I_{nj}| \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty sum_{j=1}^infty |I_{nj}| \
&leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + frac{epsilon}{2^n} \
&= sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + underbrace{sum_{n=1}^infty frac{epsilon}{2^n}}_epsilon.
end{align}



This shows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n) + epsilon
$$
for any $epsilon > 0$. It follows that
$$
m^*(A) leq sum_{n=1}^infty m^*(A_n).
$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 12 at 3:37









Martin Argerami

126k1182180




126k1182180










answered Jan 12 at 2:08









littleOlittleO

29.6k646109




29.6k646109








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 4:11














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:11






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 2:47






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:19






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    Jan 12 at 3:28






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Bendit
    Jan 12 at 4:11








1




1




$begingroup$
You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 12 at 2:11




$begingroup$
You should note that, in the question, the union was not necessarily assumed to be countable.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 12 at 2:11




1




1




$begingroup$
@DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 12 at 2:47




$begingroup$
@DavidC.Ullrich I thought about that, but sets with zero outer measure need not be empty. I don't see how the $varepsilon / 2^n$ trick works in those circumstances.
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 12 at 2:47




1




1




$begingroup$
When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 12 at 3:19




$begingroup$
When the union is uncountable the inequality is not true, so I'm not sure what you expect to prove.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 12 at 3:19




3




3




$begingroup$
Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 12 at 3:28




$begingroup$
Yes. $[0,1]=bigcup_{tin[0,1]}{t}$.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 12 at 3:28




1




1




$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 12 at 4:11




$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Ugh, obviously. :-(
$endgroup$
– Theo Bendit
Jan 12 at 4:11


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3070521%2fwhat-is-the-most-elegant-known-proof-of-ma-leq-sum-n-ma-n-when-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Mario Kart Wii

Image
Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
Read more

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Image
5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
Read more

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

Image
Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
Read more