5

Let $A \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a compact set with positive Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Can we find an open set $B \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $B \subset A$?

PS: I know that if the compactness removed, the answer is no, since $A$ can be any compact set removing all the rational points.

Ryan
  • 655

2 Answers2

10

Check out the Smith-Volterra-Cantor set or variations thereof. Note that $B=\emptyset$ is, of course, always possible.

Thorgott
  • 11,682
6

Although the other answer is really a good answer, it's worth noting that you can cook up a lot of examples in a similar manner: choose your favorite compact set $C$ (in $\mathbb R^n$ or some other nicely behaved space) with positive measure. Now, make a list of countably many open sets such that every non-empty open set contains one on your list (e.g. the set of balls of rational radius centered at rational coordinates).

Let's decide that we're okay with losing some $\varepsilon$ of area from $C$ during this construction. We are now going to nibble away at $C$ by removing open sets (preserving compactness, even in the limiting case). Choose a point in your first open set and remove from $C$ a ball with area $\varepsilon 2^{-1}$ around that point. Choose a point in your second set and remove a ball around it with area $\varepsilon 2^{-2}$. Choose a point in your third set and remove a ball around it with area $\varepsilon 2^{-3}$. Do this for your entire list. You've at most removed an area of $\varepsilon$. However, no non-empty open set is a subset of the remaining set, since no set on your list is a subset of the remaining set.

Basically, the fact that we're in a second-countable space means that there really aren't so many open sets, so we can just make a list of enough open sets and deal with them individually. This is a nice thing to keep in mind if you want to make pathological examples from scratch.

Milo Brandt
  • 60,888
  • Thanks so much for your answer :-) I am trying to understand "e.g. the set of balls of rational radius centered at rational coordinates". Does it mean the set (of balls) is uncountable? – Ryan Feb 03 '20 at 02:30
  • 1
    @Ryan The set of balls is uncountable - so you can't use it, since you need a countable list in order for any measure theory to work out right. So, a standard trick is to consider the smaller set consisting only of those balls that are centered at a point with rational coordinates (such points being countable) with rational radius (with such radii being countable as well) - but any countable list of open sets such that any open set contains a set on the list would suffice, and you can come up with your own examples, if that clarifies it better. – Milo Brandt Feb 03 '20 at 02:35
  • Sorry, I think I got a mistake in my previous comment. The set of balls is countable (the set of all possible cases picking up the balls with different centers is uncountable). Thanks again for your answer [+1], and you inspired me a lot! – Ryan Feb 03 '20 at 02:55