22
$\begingroup$

I am currently teaching an advanced undergraduate analysis class, and the following question came up.

Intuition suggests that "most" subsets of $[0,1]$ are not Lebesgue measurable. However, the power set $\mathcal{P}([0,1])$ has the same cardinality as the collection of measurable sets, so it is not clear how to make this statement precise.

One method is to view $\mathcal{P}([0,1])$ as a vector space over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, with addition corresponding to symmetric difference of sets. Then the measurable sets $\mathcal{M}$ form a subspace, and the quotient $\mathcal{P}([0,1])/\mathcal{M}$ is clearly uncountable.

So my question is: what is the cardinality of $\mathcal{P}([0,1])/\mathcal{M}$? It seems like it should be $2^c$, just like $\mathcal{P}([0,1])$, but I don't know how to prove it.

Also, in what other senses are "most" subsets of $[0,1]$ non-measurable?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I notice an answer just disappeared. (hopefully that wasn't a bug ...) $\endgroup$
    – user5810
    Feb 13, 2011 at 10:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I had posted an answer, but then realized it was flawed, so I deleted it. $\endgroup$
    – Joel David Hamkins
    Feb 13, 2011 at 10:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fix a non-measurable set $A$. Then for any measurable set $B$, the set $A \Delta B$ is not measurable. This way you get a one-to-one function from the set of measurable sets to the set of non-measurable sets, which shows that there are at least as many non-measurables as measurables. $\endgroup$
    – Nick S
    Feb 13, 2011 at 18:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
14
$\begingroup$

In 1917, Lusin and Sierpinski showed that the unit interval $[0,1]$ can be partitioned into $2^{\aleph_{0}}$ many pairwise disjoint sets each having Lebesgue outer measure 1; say, $X_{i}$, $i \in I$. Fix $i_{0} \in I$. For each proper subset $J$ with $i_{0} \notin J \subset I$, let $S_{J} = \bigcup_{j \in J} X_{j}$. Then the sets $S_{J}$, $i_{0} \notin J \subset I$, are distinct modulo $\mathcal{M}$.

Nikolai N. Lusin and Waclaw Sierpinski, “Sur une décomposition d’un intervalle en une infinité non dénombrable d’ensembles non mesurables” [On a decomposition of an interval into a nondenumerably many nonmeasurable sets], Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences (Paris) 165 (1917), 422-424.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! I didn't know the result of Lusin and Sierpinski that you mentioned, and it seems potentially very helpful. Unfortunately, the argument you gave isn't correct as written: it's not strictly true that the sets $S_J$, $J\subseteq I$ are distinct modulo $\mathcal{M}$. For example, $S_I = [0,1]$ is measurable, so $S_J$ and $S_{I-J}$ are equivalent modulo $\mathcal{M}$ for each $J$. Is there some reason that there should be $2^c$ different equivalence classes of $S_J$'s? $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Feb 13, 2011 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ Jim, the argument I suggest in my answer for forming the $2^c$ sets avoids that (probably very minor) problem but at the expense of knowing some infinite combinatorics. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Johnson
    Feb 13, 2011 at 17:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Simon: You didn't fix it you still have the two equivalent sets Jim described. You should rather look at all subsets $J \subset I$ such that $i\notin J$ for some fixed $i\in I$. $\endgroup$
    – Thomas Kragh
    Feb 13, 2011 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to be right now. Since each $S_J$ has outer measure $1$, and $[0,1] - S_J = S_{I-J}$, every $S_J$ is non-measurable as long as $J\ne\emptyset$ and $J\ne I$. Since $S_J + S_K = S_{J+K}$, it follows that $S_J$ and $S_K$ are distinct modulo $\mathcal{M}$ as long as $J\ne K$ and $J \ne I-K$. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Feb 13, 2011 at 18:11
9
$\begingroup$

I think this works to show that $\mathcal{P}/\mathcal{M}$ has cardinality $2^c$. It is a small variation on one of the usual constructions of Lebesgue non measurable sets.

Let $A\subset [0,1]$ be a Hamel basis for $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ and partition $A$ into two subsets $B$ and $C$ so that the outer measure of both is one-half and $C$ has cardinality $c$. For every subset $D$ of $C$ (maybe you need $C\sim D$ infinite), $B+D$ mod $[0,1]$ is not Lebesgue measurable. Now let $D$ vary over an almost disjoint family of subsets of $C$ that has cardinality $2^c$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm a bit confused about this answer. First, note that not every Hamel basis for $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is non-measurable, so we must be careful to pick $A$ originally to have positive outer measure, and to be decomposable into $B$ and $C$ as you have indicated. However, once we have succeeded at this, how do we know that the sets $B+D$ are inequivalent modulo $\mathcal{M}$? Indeed, $B+D_1$ and $B+D_2$ are certainly equivalent whenever $D_1$ and $D_2$ are countable. $\endgroup$
    – Jim Belk
    Feb 13, 2011 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ You start with $A\subset [0,1]$ of outer measure one, as in one of the usual construction of non measurable sets (Folland's book contains this one, IIRC). $B$ (or $C$) is the intersection of $A$ with some interval $(0,t)$. All the sets $D$ have cardinality $c$. But I don't see that this gives all of these translates are inequivalent mod $\mathcal{M}$. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Johnson
    Feb 13, 2011 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Wait a minute: Aren't you using "$S$ inequivalent to $T$ mod $\mathcal{M}$" wrongly; i.e., to mean "$T$ is not in the sigma algebra generate by $S$ and $\mathcal{M}$"? For disjoint sets, inequivalence just means that the union is not measurable, yes? Am I missing something (yet once again)? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Johnson
    Feb 13, 2011 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I see you said essentially the same thing as I was writing my last comment. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Johnson
    Feb 13, 2011 at 18:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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