7
$\begingroup$

The notion af a null set, i. e., a set of Lebesgue measure zero, does not require a full blown construction of Lebesgue measure:

A set is $E\subset \mathbb{R}$ is called a null-set if it can be covered by countably many intervals whose total length is as small as we please.

Many theorems and applications of measure theory (as in this question and some answers thereto), also only require the notion of null sets, possibly together with the statement that $\mathbb{R}^n$ is not a null set. And apparently, the concept appeared in the literature well before Lebesgue: according to these lecture notes, Riemann already knew what is known as "Lebesgue's characterisation of Riemann integrable functions", and thus, implicitly, the notion of null sets.

How familiar were the mathematicians with the concept of null-sets before Lebesgue? E. g., was the result of Riemann widely known? Who was the first to prove (or use in the proof) that $\mathbb{R}^n$ is not a null set? What (if any) were some other pre-Lebesgue results that used the concept of null-sets?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps a better fit for History of Science and Math ... see the paper of Smith mentioned here: hsm.stackexchange.com/a/7375/229 $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ @GeraldEdgar, very interesting. I couldn't find the master thesis that you mentioned, is it available? $\endgroup$
    – Kostya_I
    Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See my answer to Riemann's Contribution to Integration and the following paper: Giorgio Letta, Le condizioni di Riemann per l'integrabilità e il loro influsso sulla nascita del concetto di misura [The Riemann conditions for integrability and their influence on the notion of measure], Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL. Memorie di Matematica (5) 18 (1994), 143-169. MR 96g:01026; Zbl 852.28001 $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2020 at 18:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Incidentally, I hired a native Italian speaker (non-mathematician) to help me translate this back in 2001, and although we got through all of it, I've only LaTeX'ed about half of it at this point. One day I'll try to get it finished, and if I'm able to get the appropriate publisher permission (and the appropriate arXiv endorsement), perhaps I'll post the translation at arXiv, as Letta's paper deserves to be more widely known in my opinion. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2020 at 18:47

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .