MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a set, $A$, of $m \times n$ matrices with certain properties and a subset $B$ of $A$. I would like to say that when randomly selecting such a matrix, I am "almost always" never in $B$. I can show that $A$ is the disjoint union of subsets, $A_j$, such that for each $A_j$, the measure of $A_j\cap B$ is 0. However, this union is uncountable. Is this enough to reasonably conclude that my randomly selected matrix will "almost always" never be in $B$?

Thanks for the help!

Best, Julie

Additional info: Each $A_j$ has the following properties :

  • the interior of $A_j$ is a nonempty open subset of $\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$
  • $\partial A_j = A_j\cap B$.
share|cite|improve this question
If you allow uncountably many sets just to get what you claim you could make the Ah's singletons. So, by itself this cannot possibly tell much. I am afraid without further details there is not much specufuc to answer. – user9072 Feb 21 '12 at 1:51
Thanks for all the comments. I have added some more information to my question. Best, Julie – Julie Feb 21 '12 at 3:11
Your additional info imply that $A_j$ is an open set which contains its boundary, making it closed. Did you mean to write that $A_j$ is the closure of an open set? – Yoav Kallus Feb 21 '12 at 4:38
$R^{mxn}$ is $\sigma$−compact so an uncountable open cover has a countable subcover. So you're good, right? – David Feldman Feb 21 '12 at 4:45
This question still doesn't make sense. You can't have uncountably many disjoint open balls in euclidean space. – Dan Petersen Feb 21 '12 at 7:28
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I see some contradiction in your hypotheses: since the $A_j$'s are disjoint and have non empty interiors, the union should be at most countable (there can't exist more $A_j$'s than the cardinal of the set of rational points in $\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$).

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, this illustrates a property of my problem that I had overlooked. It actually turns out that I have exactly one possible $A_j$. – Julie Feb 21 '12 at 9:32

Let $\mathcal{U}$ denote the set of all open balls with rational centre and rational radius that are contained in $A_j$ for some $j$. This is a countable family with the same union as the original family $\{A_j : j\in J\}$. Now for $U\in\mathcal{U}$ we have $U\cap B\subseteq A_j\cap B$ for some $j$ so $U\cap B$ has measure zero. As $\mathcal{U}$ is countable and covers $B$ we conclude that $B$ has measure zero.

UPDATE: The answer above is correct if the sets $A_j$ are open, as in an earlier version of the question. The current version seems to be consistent with the following example in which $B$ does not have measure zero:

  • $n=m=1$
  • $B=[0,\infty)$
  • $A_t=(-\infty,0]\cup\{t\}$ for $t>0$
share|cite|improve this answer
Hi Nick, Thanks for the help. I may be mistaken, but it seems that $\mathcal{U}$ does not contain the points on the boundaries of the Aj? – Julie Feb 21 '12 at 6:49
Sorry, I meant Neil. – Julie Feb 21 '12 at 7:28

No, an uncountable partition will, in general, not be enough.

For example, any set whatever can be partitioned into single-element subsets, each of measure zero.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks Gerald. I have added some additional information to my question. – Julie Feb 21 '12 at 3:39

Your Answer


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.