Measure theory and the symmetric difference

In summary: Thanks for catching that.In summary, In order to prove that A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B, one needs to show that (A \cup B \cup C) \ (A \cap B \cap C) .
  • #1
nyq_guru
4
0
Hi,

I'm currently trying to teach myself some measure theory and I'm stuck on trying to show the following:

Let [tex](X,M,\mu)[/tex] be a finite positive measure space such that [tex]\mu({x})>0[/tex] [tex]\forall x \in X[/tex] . Set [tex]d(A,B) = \mu(A \Delta B)[/tex], [tex]A,B \in X[/tex]. Prove that [tex]d(A,B) \leq d(A,C) + d(C,B)[/tex] .

Could someone perhaps help me on the way? I've tried various approaches (mostly "brute force" with different re-writings of both sides of the inequality) but every time there is some term left that doesn't quite fit. Feels like it's actually quite easy and that I'm just missing the point.

Thanks in advance, oh and btw if this does not come out in the correct tex format, how do I achieve that? My first time here
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Have you tried proving that [itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]?
 
  • #3
morphism said:
Have you tried proving that [itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]?

Actually no, but I think I see where you're getting at. If I can prove this, it would imply that [tex] \mu(A \Delta B) \leq \mu((A \Delta C) \cup (C \Delta B)) [/tex].
Now I tried to prove the relation you mentioned, but I can't seem to do it. The expression for the [tex] A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B [/tex] is to nasty for me this early in the morning, especially since I'm still not comfortable enough with set algebra. However, with Venn diagrams it is easy to see.
Now, if this relation is proved, I simply use that (since it is a finite positive space) [tex] \mu((A \Delta C) \cup (C \Delta B)) = \mu(A \Delta C) + \mu(C \Delta B) - \mu((A \Delta C) \cap (C \Delta B)) [/tex]. Since the last term is >0, it is clear that the inequality holds, right?
 
  • #4
Haven't had your coffee yet? I'm not sure what you mean by "set algebra" but I would just go back to the basic definitions: to prove
[itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]

If x is in [itex]A \Delta B[/itex] then x is in A but not in B. Now look at two cases:

case 1: x is in C. Then x is in [itex]C \Delta B[/itex]

case 2: x is NOT in C. Then x is in [itex]A \Delta C[/itex]
 
  • #5
HallsofIvy said:
Haven't had your coffee yet? I'm not sure what you mean by "set algebra" but I would just go back to the basic definitions: to prove
[itex]A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/itex]

If x is in [itex]A \Delta B[/itex] then x is in A but not in B. Now look at two cases:

case 1: x is in C. Then x is in [itex]C \Delta B[/itex]

case 2: x is NOT in C. Then x is in [itex]A \Delta C[/itex]

Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't [tex] x \in A \Delta B [/tex] imply that x is in either A or B, but [tex] x \notin A \cap B [/tex]?
From drawing a Venn diagram for [tex] A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B[/tex] I believe that this relation can be written [tex] (A \cup B \cup C) [/tex] \ [tex] (A \cap B \cap C) [/tex]. If this is correct, obviously any [tex] x \in A \Delta B [/tex] will also be in [tex] A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B [/tex]. However, if this is the case I would like to show that [tex] A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B = (A \cup B \cup C) [/tex] \ [tex] (A \cap B \cap C) [/tex], not just draw a diagram.
Using the basic definitions would yield that [tex] x \in A \Delta B [/tex] if [tex] x \in A [/tex] or [tex] x \in B [/tex] but [tex] x \notin A \cap B [/tex]. Similarly, [tex] x \in A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B [/tex] implies that (if the equality earlier is true) that [tex] x \in A [/tex], [tex] x \in B [/tex] or [tex] x \in C [/tex] but [tex] x \notin A \cap B \cap C [/tex], which I believe shows that [tex] A \Delta B \subset A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B [/tex]
 
  • #6
HallsofIvy's proof is almost complete. He showed that [itex]A \backslash B \subset C \Delta B \cup A \Delta C[/itex]. Symmetrically, we have that [itex]B \backslash A \subset C \Delta A \cup B \Delta C[/itex], and the result now follows.
 
  • #7
Something went seriously wrong with my last post, everything just became a blur. The expressions aren't even in the correct places. Oh well, I'll fix it when I get home. morphism, thanks for pointing out that way to complete the proof. I still can't let go of the thought of rewriting the expression for [tex] A \Delta C \cup C \Delta B [/tex] though :-).
 
  • #8
You are right. I completely missed that: I was thinking "difference" rather than "symmetric difference". And I had had my coffee!
 

FAQ: Measure theory and the symmetric difference

What is measure theory?

Measure theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with the concept of measurement and the properties of measurable sets. It provides a formal framework for defining and analyzing concepts such as length, area, volume, and probability.

What is the symmetric difference of two sets?

The symmetric difference of two sets A and B, denoted by A △ B, is the set of elements that are in either A or B, but not in both. In other words, it is the set of elements that belong to exactly one of the two sets.

How is the symmetric difference related to set operations?

The symmetric difference can be seen as a combination of the set operations of union and relative complement. It can be expressed as (A ∪ B) - (A ∩ B) or (A - B) ∪ (B - A).

What are some properties of the symmetric difference?

Some properties of the symmetric difference include commutativity (A △ B = B △ A), associativity ((A △ B) △ C = A △ (B △ C)), and de Morgan's laws (A △ B = (A ∪ B) - (A ∩ B) = (A - B) ∪ (B - A)). It is also a binary operation that is closed on the set of all subsets of a given set.

How is measure theory used in the context of the symmetric difference?

Measure theory is used to define the concept of measure, which assigns a numerical value to sets in a measurable space. This allows us to calculate the measure of the symmetric difference of two sets, which can be useful in various applications such as probability and integration.

Similar threads

Back
Top