3
$\begingroup$

Could someone will verify my statement: For every locally finite Borel measure on metric space and closed set $F$ with finite measure, there exists open set $U$ such that $F \subset U$ and $U$ has finite measure ?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ What do you call "locally finite"? This terminology is usually used in locally compact spaces, where it equivalently means (a) finite on compact subsets (b) each point has a neighborhood of finite measure. The terminology would rather naturally mean (b), but it's better specify. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 4:49
  • $\begingroup$ I mean finite on bounded subsets $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ On bounded subsets? this is not standard... in the answer you accepted, the whole space is bounded, so it doesn't work. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, it's bounded by what ? $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ The distance is uniformly bounded by $1$. Since the whole space has infinite measure, this is not "locally finite" in your sense. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 21:56

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

No, not in general.

My metric space is the disjoint union of uncountably many copies of $\mathbb R$. $$X = \bigsqcup_{t \in T} X_t$$ where $T$ is uncountable and $X_t = \mathbb R$ for all $t$. The metric: two points in the same $X_t$ have distance $\min(|x-y|,1)$, two points in different $X_t$ have distance $1$.
My measure is Lebesgue measure $\mu_t$ on each copy $X_t$ of $\mathbb R$. So for a subset $E \subseteq X$ we can write $E = \bigsqcup_{t \in T} E_t$ where $E_t \subseteq \mathbb R$, and its measure is $$\mu(E) = \sum_{t \in T}\mu_t(E_t).$$

This measure is locally finite. Any point in $X$ lies in exactly one set $X_t$ and the open ball of radius $1/2$ centered there has measure $1$.

But your finiteness property fails. Let the closed set be $$F = \bigsqcup_{t \in T} F_t$$ where $F_t = \{0\}$ for all $t$. Then $\mu(F) = 0$. Let $G \supseteq F$ be an open set. I claim $\mu(G) = +\infty$. Indeed, $$G = \bigsqcup_{t \in T} G_t$$ where for all $t$, the set $G_t$ is an open neighborhood of $\{0\}$. So $\mu(G_t) > 0$ for all $t$. And $\mu(G) = \sum \mu_t(G_t)$ is an uncountable sum of positive numbers. So $\mu(G) = +\infty$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To get your conclusion you could assume the metric space is separable. Or you could assume your closed set is $\sigma$-compact. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ Don't you want copies of $(0,1)$ instead? Otherwise the triangle inequality fails. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 5:28
  • $\begingroup$ Good point. Or use metric $d(x,y) = \min(|x-y|,1)$ in $\mathbb R$. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, it's a simple counterexample in some way, but not obvious. Thank you for that @GeraldEdgar $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ In fact, I could assume $\tau$-additivity of measure, but separability of metric space is too strong for my contemplations $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    Commented Aug 9, 2019 at 21:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .