9
$\begingroup$

Let $g(t)$ be a strictly increasing differentiable function. Can it map positively measurable set to zero measurable set?

It's obviously that $\{g'>0\}$ is dense. If I can prove that the Lebesgue measure $m(\{g'=0\}) = 0$, then for every set with positive measure, there will be a positively measurable subset with $g'>\epsilon$ on it, and consequently maps the set to nonzero measure set(It's a theorem and I forget it's name).

The question derives from my textbook, which says if $g(t)$ is a strictly increasing differentiable function and Riemann integrable, and $f(x)$ is Riemann integrable, then $$\int f(x) = \int f(g(t))g'(t)$$ All functions defined on suitable closed set.

It seems that $f(g(t))$ may even be not integrable and that is totally a typo. But with my intuition of measure theory, this might be true since $g$ is differentiable.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GeraldEdgar It's not the same thing. I am saying mapping sets of positive measure to sets of measure zero instead of mapping sets of measure zero to sets of positive measure $\endgroup$ – XT Chen Feb 24 at 14:40
16
$\begingroup$

There are strictly increasing $C^1$ functions that map sets of positive measure to sets of measure zero. Here is a construction:

Let $C\subset [0,1]$ be a Cantor set of positive measure. For a construction, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Volterra-Cantor_set. Let $g(x)=\operatorname{dist}(x,C)$. The function $g$ is clearly continuous and equal zero on $C$. In fact $g$ is a $1$-Lipschitz function. Let $$ f(x)=\int_0^x g(t)\, dt. $$ The function $f$ is $C^1$ and it is strictly increasing. Indeed, if $y>x$, then $$ f(y)-f(x)=\int_x^y g(t)\, dx>0 $$ because the interval $[x,y]$ is not contained in the Cantor set $C$ and therefore it contains an interval where $g$ is positive.

On the other hand $f'=g=0$ on $C$ which has positive measure and $f(C)$ has measure zero since $m(f(C))=\int_C f'(t)\, dt=\int_C g(t)\, dt=0$.

As was pointed out by Mateusz Kwaśnicki in his comment, this construction gives the following result:

Theorem. Let $f$ be as above. Then there is a Riemann integrable function $h$ such that $h\circ f$ is not Riemann integrable.

Proof. The set $f(C)$ is homeomorphic to the Cantor set ($f$ is strictly increasing so it is a homeomorphism) and has measure zero as explained above. Let $$ h(x)=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $x\in f(C)$}\\ 0 & \text{if $x\not\in f(C)$.} \end{cases} $$ The function $h$ is Riemann integrable with the integral equal zero since it is bounded and continuous outside the set $f(C)$ of measure zero (because $\mathbb{R}\setminus f(C)$ is open and $h=0$ there). However, $$ (h\circ f)(x)=\begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $x\in C$}\\ 0 & \text{if $x\not\in C$.} \end{cases} $$ is not Riemann integrable since it is discontinuous on a set $C$ of positive measure. $\Box$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ In case one needs a paper reference, virtually the same construction is carried out in Real Analysis Exchange 22(1) (1996-97): 404–405 by Javier Fernández de Bobadilla de Olazabal. $\endgroup$ – Mateusz Kwaśnicki Feb 24 at 21:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Furthermore, if you modify your construction just a little bit to make $g$ be a positive $C^\infty$ “bump” on each interval (connected component) of the complement of $C$, with all derivatives tending to $0$ at the edges of the interval, and with the height of the bumps tending fast enough to $0$, you can get $g$ hence $f$ to be both $C^\infty$, still with the same property. $\endgroup$ – Gro-Tsen Feb 25 at 15:58

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.