Measure theory conjecture


By Brad Rodgers on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 03:35 am:
Suppose we have a set S with measure S', and S'>0. If

1 S' S xm dx=1/(m+1),

for all positive m, does that imply that S'=1? For all natural numbers m?
Brad


By Michael Doré on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 02:28 pm:

Note that if c>1 then the set S[c,) is null. For if there is a subset of S of measure r>0 each element of which is c then for even m, your integral would be r cm which tends to as m, a contradiction. This means that S[1,) is null, by the countable union property. Similarly S(-,-1] is null. So S is completely contained in [-1,1] apart from a null set.

Now let ε>0 and let f be a continuous function which is 1 on [-1,-ε] and 0 on [0,1] (and linear in between). For any δ>0, by Weierstrass' theorem we can find a polynomial p such that |p(x)-f(x)|<δ/2 for all x in [-1,1]. Therefore |q(x)-f(x)|<δ for all x in [-1,1] where q(x)=p(x)-p(0). So q is a polynomial with no constant coefficient.

Now we have:

1/S' S xm dx= 0 1 xm dx

for all positive integers m. Therefore:

|1/S' S q(x)dx|=| 0 1 q(x)dx|<δ

It quickly follows that [-1,-ε]S is null so [-1,0]S is null. So S is completely contained in [0,1] apart from a null set.

Using similar approximation techniques you can show that for any [a,b] contained in [0,1] then measure S[a,b]=S'(b-a). My guess is that it should follow quickly that S is the whole of [0,1] apart from a null set but I haven't worked out the details.


By Michael Doré on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 05:00 pm:

Actually we can simplify this somewhat. As above S[-1,1] is null. Now we're given:

1/S' S xm dx= 0 1 xm dx

for all positive integers m. However this relationship is also trivially true for m=0 (a fact I managed to miss earlier!) Therefore for any polynomial P we have:

1/S' S P(x)dx= 0 1 P(x)dx

So by Weierstrass this is true for any continuous function P (uniformly approximate the continuous function by polynomials on [-1,1] and it doesn't matter what happens outside [-1,1]).

Certainly S is null on [-1,0] (let P(x)=0 for positive x and P(x)=-x/ε on [-ε,0] and P(x)=1 for x<-ε).

So S is contained in [0,1] except for a null set and:

1/S' S P(x)dx= 0 1 P(x)dx

for all continuous P. Then for any subinterval [a,b] of [0,1] set P(x)=1 on [a,b] and make it fall off to 0 very rapidly outside [a,b]. Taking the limit we have 1/S' S[ab] 1dx= a b 1dx so the measure of S[a,b] is S'(b-a) as I stated earlier.

Is this enough to conclude that S is the same as [0,1] apart from a null difference? I think something like this came up earlier in a thread in which it was asked whether a set existed such that its Lesbegue measure on any interval [a,b] was (b-a)/2. As I remember Dan Goodman said there was a theorem which said no, the Lesbegue density of any measurable set is 0 or 1 almost everywhere. In this case this implies that S'=1 and the measure of S[a,b] is S'(b-a)=b-a for every subinterval [a,b] of [0,1]. In particular the measure of S on [0,1] is 1 and so S is almost the same as [0,1] (i.e. almost all elements of S are in [0,1] and almost all elements on [0,1] are in S).


By Michael Doré on Sunday, September 29, 2002 - 11:02 pm:

Of course we can do this last bit without using the density theorem. S has measure S' so it has outer measure S'. Therefore for any ε>0 we can cover S with countably many disjoint open intervals I1 , I2 , ... such that |S'-| Ii ||<ε. Therefore:

|S'-1/S'measureS Ii |<ε

So by the countable union property:

|S'-1/S'measure(S I1 )(S I2 )...|<ε But the set (S I1 )(S I2 )... is just S (all its elements are in S and all elements of S are in one of the Ii s). So:

|S'-1|<ε This holds for every ε>0 so S'=1 and S is [0,1] up to a null difference.


By Ian Short on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 12:55 pm:

That seems like a really good solution!