3

Here is Prob. 23, Chap. 2, in the book Real Analysis by H.L. Royden and P.M. Fitzpatrick, 4th edition:

For any set $A$, define $m^{***}(A) \in [0, \infty]$ by $$ m^{***}(A) = \sup \left\{ m^*(F) \, | \, F \subseteq A, F \mbox{ closed} \right\}. $$ How is this set function $m^{***}$ related to $m^*$?

My Attempt:

If $F$ is any (closed) set such that $F \subseteq A$, then by the monotonicity of the outer measure, we must have $m^*(F) \leq m^*(A)$, and thus $m^*(A)$ is an upper bound for the set $$ \left\{ m^*(F) \, | \, F \subseteq A, F \mbox{ closed} \right\}. \tag{1} $$ Therefore we must have $$ m^{***}(A) \leq m^*(A). \tag{2} $$

How to establish the reverse inequality?

Here our set can either be measurable or not, and also either $m^*(A) = \infty$ or $m^*(A) < \infty$.

How to show in each one of the above four cases that $$ m^*(A) \leq m^{***}(A)? $$

PS:

Here is my attempted proof of the reverse inequality of (2) above.

If $m^{***}(A) = \infty$, then we trivially have $m^*(A) \leq m^{***}(A)$. So let us assume that $m^{***}(A) < \infty$. Then, for any closed set $F$ such that $F \subseteq A$, we must have $m^*(F) \leq m^{***}(A) < \infty$. Thus we have $m^*(F) < \infty$ for any closed set $F$ contained in $A$.

If $A$ is measurable, then by Theorem 11 (iii), Chap. 2, in Royden, for any real number $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a closed set $F_\epsilon$ contained in $A$ for which $$ m^* \left( A \setminus F_\epsilon \right) < \epsilon. \tag{3} $$ But as $F_\epsilon$ is a closed set, so $F_\epsilon$ is measurable, and as $F_\epsilon \subseteq A$, so we also have $m^*\left( F_\epsilon \right) < \infty$. Therefore (3) together with the excision property yields $$ m^*(A) - m^* \left( F_\epsilon \right) = m^* \left( A \setminus F_\epsilon \right) < \epsilon, $$ which implies
$$ m^*(A) < m^* \left( F_\epsilon \right) + \epsilon \leq m^{***}(A) + \epsilon, $$ which in turn implies $$ m^*(A) \leq m^{***}(A) + \epsilon $$ for any real number $\epsilon > 0$, and therefore we can conclude that $$ m^*(A) \leq m^{***}(A). \tag{4} $$

If $A$ is not measurable, then by Prob. Prob. 17, Chap. 2, in Royden, there exists a real number $\epsilon_0 > 0$ such that, for any open set $O$ and for any closed set $F$ such that $F \subseteq A \subset O$, we have $$ m^*(O \setminus F ) \geq \epsilon_0. \tag{5} $$ But any closed set is measurable, and in particular any closed set $F$ contained in $A$ is measurable with finite outer measure; we therefore have $$ m^*(O \setminus F) = m^*(O) - m^*(F), $$ by the excision property, and the last identity together with (5) gives $$ m^*(O) - m*(F) \geq \epsilon_0, $$ and thus we have $$ m^*(O) \geq m^*(F) + \epsilon_0. \tag{5} $$

What next? How to proceed from here and prove that (4) above holds in the case when $A$ is not measurable?

  • This is regularity of $m^{*}$. – Kavi Rama Murthy Mar 31 '21 at 12:18
  • @KaviRamaMurthy can we avoid using the concept of regularity since Royden has not discussed this concept upto this point the book? Could you please write out a full answer elaborating on how the desired reverse inequality holds? – Saaqib Mahmood Mar 31 '21 at 17:19
  • @KaviRamaMurthy can you please have a look at my question now? I have just added some more stuff to it as a PS. Can you please elaborate on your earlier comment but specifically answering the last query of mine? – Saaqib Mahmood Apr 04 '21 at 12:40

1 Answers1

3

$m^{***}$ is the called the Lebesgue inner measure, often denoted by $m_*$ Your proof of $m_* \le m^*$ looks good.

We want to show $m_*(A) = m^*(A)$ when $A$ is measurable. After that, we show $m_*(A) < m^*(A)$ when $A$ is not measurable and $m^*(A)$ is finite. It is possible that $m_*(A) = m^*(A) = +\infty$ but $A$ is not measurable. Can you construct an example using Vitali set in $[0, 1]$? To begin, we first prove the outer and inner regularity of $m^*$.

Outer regularity:

Let $A$ be measurable. Then for all $\varepsilon > 0$ we can find open $G$ with $A \subseteq G$ such that $m^*(G \setminus A) < \varepsilon$.

Proof:

Suppose $A$ has finite measure. Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. By the definition of $m^*$, we can take an open interval cover $(I_n)$ for $A$ such that $$ m^* \left( \bigcup_n I_n \right) - m^*(A) < \varepsilon $$ Now let $G = \bigcup_n I_n$ and apply the excision property to get the result. When $A$ has infinite measure, we make use of the $\sigma$-finiteness of $m^*$ by chopping $A$ into $A_n = A \cap [n, n + 1)$. Now each $A_n$ has finite measure and using the above we can find open $G_n$ with $A_n \subseteq G_n$ such that $$ m^*(G_n \setminus A_n) < \frac{\varepsilon}{2^{n+1}} $$ Let $G = \bigcup_n G_n$. We have $$ m^*(G \setminus A) \\ = m^*\left(\bigcup_n G_n \setminus \bigcup_n A_n\right) \\ = m^*\left(\bigcup_n (G_n \setminus A_n)\right) \\ \le \sum_n m^*(G_n \setminus A_n) \\ \le \sum_n \frac{\varepsilon}{2^{n+1}} \\ = \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \\ < \varepsilon $$

Inner regularity:

Let $A$ be measurable. Then for all $\varepsilon > 0$ we can find closed $F$ with $F \subseteq A$ such that $m^*(A \setminus F) < \varepsilon$.

Proof:

We use the proof in Approximation of finite Lebesgue measurable set by closed subset. Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. Using outer regularity, we can find open $G$ with $A^c \subseteq G$ such that $m^*(G \setminus A^c) < \varepsilon$. Let $F = G^c$. Then $F$ is closed with $F = G^c \subseteq A$ and $$ m^*(A \setminus F) \\ = m^*(A \setminus G^c) \\ = m^*(A \cap G) \\ = m^*(G \setminus A^c) \\ < \varepsilon $$

After proving the above lemmas, we next show $m_*(A) = m^*(A)$ when $A$ is measurable.

Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. By inner regularity, we can find closed $F$ with $F \subseteq A$ such that $m^*(A \setminus F) < \varepsilon$. When $m^*(A)$ is finite, $m^*(F)$ is also finite. By the excision property, we see that $m^*(A) - m^*(F) < \varepsilon$. Therefore, $$ m^*(A) < m^*(F) + \varepsilon \le m_*(A) + \varepsilon $$ As $\varepsilon$ can be arbitrarily small, we get $m^*(A) \le m_*(A)$. When $m^*(A)$ is infinite, $m^*(A) = m^*(A \setminus F) + m^*(F)$ implies $m^*(F)$ must also be infinite. Therefore, $m^*(A) = m_*(A)$.

Finally, We want to show ($A$ is not measurable and $m^*(A)$ is finite) $\implies m_*(A) < m^*(A)$. Note that this is logically equivalent to ($m_*(A) = m^*(A)$ and $m^*(A)$ is finite) $\implies$ $A$ is measurable.

We use the idea from Lebesgue measurable implies caratheodory measurable and adapt it to our case. Suppose $m_*(A) = m^*(A)$ with $m^*(A)$ being finite. Fix set $B$ and $\varepsilon > 0$. Then we can find closed $F$ with $F \subseteq A$ such that $m^*(A) - m^*(F) < \frac{\varepsilon}{4}$, and open $G$ with $A \subseteq G$ such that $m^*(G) - m^*(A) < \frac{\varepsilon}{4}$. Since $G \setminus F$ is measurable and $F \subseteq A$ must also have finite measure, by the excision property, $$ m^*(G \setminus F) \\ = m^*(G) - m^*(F) \\ = m^*(G) - m^*(A) + m^*(A) - m^*(F) \\ < \frac{\varepsilon}{4} + \frac{\varepsilon}{4} \\ = \frac{\varepsilon}{2} $$ This is known as regularity. Now $$ m^*(B) \\ \le m^*(B \cap A) + m^*(B \setminus A) \\ \le m^*(B \cap G) + m^*(B \setminus F) \\ = m^*(B \cap (A \cup (G \setminus F))) + m^*(B \setminus (A \setminus (G \setminus F))) \\ \le m^*(B \cap A) + m^*(B \cap (G \setminus F)) + m^*(B \setminus A) + m^*(B \cap (G \setminus F)) \\ = m^*(B \cap A) + m^*(B \setminus A) + 2 \cdot m^*(B \cap (G \setminus F)) \\ \le m^*(B \cap A) + m^*(B \setminus A) + 2 \cdot m^*(G \setminus F) \\ \le m^*(B \cap A) + m^*(B \setminus A) + \varepsilon $$ Since $\varepsilon$ can be arbitrarily small, $m^*(B) = m^*(B \cap A) + m^*(B \setminus A)$. Therefore, $A$ is measurable by definition.

  • can you please edit your answer and make your notation conform to the notation in my original post? Your notation as it is is not clear enough to me, I'm afraid. So I'd appreciate if you could take time reviewing your answer and change the notation so as to make your proof more readable for me. – Saaqib Mahmood Apr 04 '21 at 17:49
  • @SaaqibMahmood No problem, but which parts are not being readable to you? I try to change the latex and markdown source code to make it more readable, please tell me if it works :) – 光復香港 時代革命 Free Hong Kong Apr 04 '21 at 23:14