Is the sum of 2 Lebesgue measurable sets measurable? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-26T09:03:18Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/19471http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/19471/is-the-sum-of-2-lebesgue-measurable-sets-measurableIs the sum of 2 Lebesgue measurable sets measurable?Nicolò2010-03-26T22:45:54Z2011-05-27T14:42:51Z
<p>Is the sum of two measurable set measurable? I think it is not...</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19471/is-the-sum-of-2-lebesgue-measurable-sets-measurable/19472#19472Answer by Joel David Hamkins for Is the sum of 2 Lebesgue measurable sets measurable?Joel David Hamkins2010-03-26T22:52:32Z2010-03-27T15:30:45Z<p>Evidently, there are <a href="http://www.math.wvu.edu/~kcies/prepF/89A+A/89A+A.pdf" rel="nofollow">measure zero sets with a non measurable sum</a>. The article begins as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Krzysztof Ciesielski,
Hajrudin Fejzi´c, Chris Freiling, </p>
<p><b>Measure zero sets with non-measurable sum</b></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Abstract</p>
<p>For any C ⊆ R there is a subset A ⊆ C such that A + A has inner
measure zero and outer measure the same as C + C. Also, there is a
subset A of the Cantor middle third set such that A+A is Bernstein in
[0, 2]. On the other hand there is a perfect set C such that C + C is an
interval I and there is no subset A ⊆ C with A + A Bernstein in I.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>1 Introduction.</p>
<p>It is not at all surprising that there should be measure zero sets, A, whose sum
A+A = {x+y : x ∈ A, y ∈ A} is non-measurable. Ask a typical mathematician
why this should be so and you are likely to get the following response:</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The Cantor middle-third set, when added to itself gives an entire
interval, [0, 2]. So certainly there exists a measure zero set that
when added to itself gives a non-measurable set.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>The intuition being that an interval has much more content than is needed for
a non-measurable set.
Indeed such sets do exist (in ZFC). Sierpi´nski (1920) seems to be the first
to address this issue. Actually, he shows the existence of measure zero sets
X, Y such that X+Y is non-measurable (see [7]). The paper by Rubel (see [6])
in 1963 contains the first proof that we could find for the case X = Y (see also
[5]). Ciesielski [3] extends these results to much greater generality, showing
that A can be a measure zero Hamel basis, or it can be a (non-measurable)
Bernstein set and that A+A can also be Bernstein. He also establishes similar
results for multiple sums, A + A + A etc.</p>
<p>This paper is mainly about the statement above and the intuition behind
it. Below we list four conjectures, each of which seems justified by extending
this line of reasoning.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Not only does such a set exist, but it can be taken to be a subset of the
Cantor middle-third set, C. (This does not seem to immediately follow
from any of the above proofs. Thomson [9, p. 136] claims this to be
true, but without proof.)</p></li>
<li><p>The intuition really has nothing to do with the precise structure of the
Cantor set, which might lead one to conjecture the following. Suppose
C is any set with the property that C + C contains a set of positive
measure. Then there must exist a subset A ⊆ C such that A + A is
non-measurable.</p></li>
<li><p>The intuition relies on the fact that non-measurable sets can have far
less content than an entire interval. Therefore, the claim should also
hold when non-measurable is replaced by other similar qualities. Recall
that if I is a set then a set S is called Bernstein in I if and only if
both S and its complement intersect every non-empty perfect subset
of I. Constructing a set that is Bernstein in an interval is one of the
standard ways of establishing non-measurability. Certainly, any set that
is Bernstein in an interval has far less content than the interval itself.
Therefore, we might conjecture that there is a subset A ⊆ C
with A+A
Bernstein in [0,2].</p></li>
<li><p>Combining the reasoning behind the Conjectures 2 and 3, let C be any
set with the property that C + C contains an interval, I. We might
conjecture that there must exist a subset A ⊆ C such that A + A is
Bernstein in I.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>We will settle these four conjectures in the next four sections.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>The paper goes on to show that conjectures 1, 2 and 3 are true, but 4 is false.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19471/is-the-sum-of-2-lebesgue-measurable-sets-measurable/27903#27903Answer by Péter Komjáth for Is the sum of 2 Lebesgue measurable sets measurable?Péter Komjáth2010-06-12T05:35:32Z2010-06-12T05:35:32Z<p>I think the sum of 2 Borel sets is analytic, hence measurable. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/19471/is-the-sum-of-2-lebesgue-measurable-sets-measurable/66196#66196Answer by Goldstern for Is the sum of 2 Lebesgue measurable sets measurable?Goldstern2011-05-27T14:42:51Z2011-05-27T14:42:51Z<p>Note that the problem is trivial if you talk about subsets of the plane $\mathbb R\times \mathbb R$. Let $A\subseteq \mathbb R$ be non-measurable, then <code>$A\times \{0\}$</code> and <code>$\{0\}\times \mathbb R$</code> both have Lebesgue measure 0 in the plane, but their sum $A\times \mathbb R$ is not measurable. </p>