Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

6

1

It is well known that for any set A in R^d there exists a measurable set E such that E contains A and m*(A)=m*(E). Is it possible to go the other direction? In other words, is it true that for any measurable set E (such that m(E)>0) there is a non-measurable subset A such that m*(A)=m*(E)?

edited Jan 25 2010 at 14:29

François G. Dorais♦
22.6k●2●48●113

asked Jan 25 2010 at 14:02

Haim
560●1●3●8

Gerald Edgar · Accepted Answer · 2010-01-25 14:44:49Z UTC

13

A set $E$ with positive Lebesgue measure can be decomposed as a union $E = A \cup B$ where each of $A$ and $B$ have zero inner measure, and therefore each of $A$ and $B$ are nonmeasurable with $m^*(A) = m^*(B) = m(E)$.

An example for this construction is a Bernstein set.

edited Jan 25 2010 at 14:44

answered Jan 25 2010 at 14:39

Gerald Edgar
15.2k●1●28●67

Thanks. This is what I was looking for. – Haim Jan 25 2010 at 18:02

Zev Chonoles · Answer 2 · 2010-01-25 14:26:21Z UTC

0

Yes, I believe so - since subsets of a null set $A$ (i.e., $m(A)=0$) are not necessarily measurable, but will obviously still have outer measure 0, given any measurable set $E$ you "should" (i.e., I think so, but not sure) be able to find a non-measurable subset $S$ of a null set $A$ inside $E$, remove $S$, and since $m(E)=m(E-S)+m(S)$ and $m(S)$ isn't anything, we must have that $m(E-S)$ isn't anything, while we still have $m^{\ast}(E)=m^{\ast}(E-S)+m^{\ast}(S)=m^{\ast}(E-S)$.

answered Jan 25 2010 at 14:26

Zev Chonoles
4,080●1●13●46

	Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the Lebesgue measure complete? i.e. for every measurable set A with m(A)=0, each subset of A is Lebesgue-measurable with measure zero. – Haim Jan 25 2010 at 14:31
	Subsets of null sets are always Lebesgue measurable, but not necessarily Borel measurable. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "measurable" in your answer. – François G. Dorais♦ Jan 25 2010 at 14:31
	Ah, right - I meant Lebesgue measure in my answer, but got mixed up. Clarifying which measure you mean is a good idea, as it will help avoid confusions such as mine :) – Zev Chonoles Jan 25 2010 at 14:41

Non Lebesgue measurable subsets with “large” outer measure

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

2 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.