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
    Aug 9, 2019 at 4:49
  • $\begingroup$ I mean finite on bounded subsets $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    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
    Aug 9, 2019 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, it's bounded by what ? $\endgroup$
    – Michael
    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
    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. $\endgroup$ Aug 9, 2019 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ Don't you want copies of $(0,1)$ instead? Otherwise the triangle inequality fails. $\endgroup$ Aug 9, 2019 at 5:28
  • $\begingroup$ Good point. Or use metric $d(x,y) = \min(|x-y|,1)$ in $\mathbb R$. $\endgroup$ 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
    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
    Aug 9, 2019 at 21:09

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.