6
$\begingroup$

It is well known that for any set A in R^d there exists a measurable set E such that E contains A and m*(A)=m*(E). Is it possible to go the other direction? In other words, is it true that for any measurable set E (such that m(E)>0) there is a non-measurable subset A such that m*(A)=m*(E)?

$\endgroup$
14
$\begingroup$

A set $E$ with positive Lebesgue measure can be decomposed as a union $E = A \cup B$ where each of $A$ and $B$ have zero inner measure, and therefore each of $A$ and $B$ are nonmeasurable with $m^*(A) = m^*(B) = m(E)$.

An example for this construction is a Bernstein set.

$\endgroup$
0
0
$\begingroup$

Yes, I believe so - since subsets of a null set $A$ (i.e., $m(A)=0$) are not necessarily measurable, but will obviously still have outer measure 0, given any measurable set $E$ you "should" (i.e., I think so, but not sure) be able to find a non-measurable subset $S$ of a null set $A$ inside $E$, remove $S$, and since $m(E)=m(E-S)+m(S)$ and $m(S)$ isn't anything, we must have that $m(E-S)$ isn't anything, while we still have $m^{\ast}(E)=m^{\ast}(E-S)+m^{\ast}(S)=m^{\ast}(E-S)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the Lebesgue measure complete? i.e. for every measurable set A with m(A)=0, each subset of A is Lebesgue-measurable with measure zero. $\endgroup$
    – Haim
    Jan 25 '10 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ Subsets of null sets are always Lebesgue measurable, but not necessarily Borel measurable. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "measurable" in your answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 25 '10 at 14:31
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, right - I meant Lebesgue measure in my answer, but got mixed up. Clarifying which measure you mean is a good idea, as it will help avoid confusions such as mine :) $\endgroup$ Jan 25 '10 at 14:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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