Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Are their simple/natural examples of real-valued Borel-measurable random variables whose image is not a Borel set? Something that occurs "naturally"?

I am teaching Doob's lemma (for two real-valued random variables $X$ and $Y$, $X$ is $\sigma(Y)$-measurable iff there exists a Borel-measurable function $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ such that $X=f(Y)$) and the main difficulty in the proof comes from the fact that $Y(\Omega)$ is in general not a Borel set. So I am wondering if there is a "natural" example that I can use to convince 4th year students that this "pathology" can naturally come up.

It is easy to construct examples, e.g., choose $A\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ any set that is not a Borel set, and equip it with the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{A}=\{A\cap B; B\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})\}$, where $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ denotes the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets in $\mathbb{R}$. Then the inclusion $X:(A,\mathcal{A})\to (\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}))$ is measurable and has $A$ as image, so its image is not a Borel set. But this feels like cheating...

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

An analytic set that is not a Borel set...see this post* from long ago.

Such an analytic set is a continuous image of $[0,1] \setminus \mathbb Q$, and thus a Borel image of $[0,1]$.

*From: e...@math.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: Real Measurable, non-Borel. Date: 7 Oct 1993 08:13:10 -0400 Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math. Message-ID: <29114m$e1b@math.mps.ohio-state.edu> References:

In $\lt$CEIvIr....@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> emlap...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (eli lapell) wrote: $\gt$What is a set of real numbers which is measurable but not Borel? Or just not Borel, period ??

An explicit example of a set of real numbers that is measurable (indeed, analytic) but not Borel [due to Lusin, Fundamenta Math. 10 (1927) p. 77]:

the set of all real numbers x with continued fraction expansion
x = a[0] + 1/(a[1] + 1/(...))
such that, for some positive integers r[1] < r[2] < ..., we have a[r[i]] divides 
a[r[i+1]] for all i.

Other examples of analytic sets that are not Borel can be given in (complete separable) metric spaces other than the line:

In the space K[0,1] of nonempty compact subsets of [0,1] with the Hausdorff
metric:  The subset consists of the uncountable compact subsets.  [Hurewicz, 1930]

${}$

In the space C[0,1] of real-valued continuous functions on [0,1] with the
unform metric:  The subset consists of the differentiable functions.
[Mazurkiewicz, 1936]
share|improve this answer
    
the link is broken –  Nikita Evseev Aug 3 at 11:21
    
Fixed, ${}$ thanks. –  Gerald Edgar Aug 3 at 20:51

I like this example, which is as natural as can be an example with sets that are not Lebesgue measurable. Start from the Cantor function $f:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and consider $h(x):= x+f(x)$, which is a homeomorphism $[0,1]\rightarrow[0,2]$. On each interval on the complement of the Cantor set $C$ this functions is a translation. Therefore $|h([0,1]\setminus C)|=|[0,1]\setminus C|=1$. Thus $|h(C)|=|[0,2]\setminus h([0,1]\setminus C)|=1$. So there exists a non measurable subset $V$ of $ h(C)$; let $W$ be $h^{-1}(V)\subset C$. Finally, the homeomorphism $h$ maps this Lebesgue measurable set $W$ into the non-measurable set $V$.

Also note that any Lebesgue, non Borel set in $h(C)$ is mapped by the homeomorphism $h^{-1}$ into a Lebesgue, non Borel subset of $C$.

share|improve this answer
    
(now I see you wrote "Borel measurable". Here $W$ is Lebesgue measurable, but of course, not a Borel set) –  Pietro Majer Jan 29 '13 at 18:50
    
I wrote $h^{-1}$ for $h$, now fixed. Note that $h^{-1}$ is also interesting, and closer to what you want: since it is a homeomorphism, it bijects Borel subsets. And sends any subset of $h(C)$ (non-Lebesgue, Lebesgue and non-Borel, etc) into a (Lebesgue) subset of $C$. –  Pietro Majer Jan 30 '13 at 11:44
2  
I suppose that $|\cdot|$ denotes the measure of a set, rather than its cardinality... –  Asaf Karagila Feb 1 '13 at 18:35
    
Indeed, the Lebesgue measure –  Pietro Majer Feb 2 '13 at 10:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.