Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 15, 2015 at 19:02 comment added Nate Eldredge @ChristianRemling: In other words, having $U_n \downarrow A$ does not imply $U_n - G \downarrow A - G$.
Sep 15, 2015 at 19:01 answer added Nate Eldredge timeline score: 1
Sep 15, 2015 at 18:34 comment added Nate Eldredge @ChristianRemling: I can't seem to make this argument work. Let's say $G = \mathbb{Q}$. For a measurable set $B$, let $f_B(t) = \sup_{q \in \mathbb{Q}} 1_B(t+q)$. Then $f_A$ is the indicator of the displayed set. And if $U$ is any open set then $f_U = 1$ everywhere. So it can't in general be true that if $1_{U_n} \downarrow 1_A$ then $f_{U_n} \to f_A$ almost everywhere, because it will fail when $A$ has measure zero. There is a sup and inf that we can't interchange.
Jun 28, 2015 at 11:09 comment added Julian Newman @ChristianRemling: Thank you for your answer. This is also a very nice answer.
Jun 28, 2015 at 10:42 comment added Julian Newman @PabloShmerkin: Thank you very much for this, this is a nice simple solution.
Jun 28, 2015 at 5:15 comment added Christian Remling By monotone convergence, we can compute the measure of the displayed set as a limit where we replace $A$ by $U_n$, if $\chi_{U_n}$ decreases to $\chi_A$ a.e. Now use outer regularity to approximate $A$ by open sets, and take any dense $G$.
Jun 28, 2015 at 2:45 comment added Pablo Shmerkin Take $G=\mathbb{Q}$. Then $A-G$ has full measure (say, by the Lebesgue density theorem), so $(t+G)\cap A\neq\varnothing$ for almost all $t$.
Jun 28, 2015 at 1:52 history asked Julian Newman CC BY-SA 3.0