- #1
lark
- 163
- 0
I realized something weird.
That, suppose you take the rationals in [0,1], call this set [tex]Q.[/tex] [tex]Q[/tex]'s a Borel set, so if [tex]\mu[/tex] is Lebesgue measure, [tex]\mu(Q)=inf(\mu(V), V [/tex]open,[tex] Q \subset V).[/tex]
[tex]Q[/tex] can be covered by open sets of total measure [tex]\le 1[/tex] by counting the rationals; cover the first rational by an interval size 1/2, the second by an interval size 1/4 ...
But, [tex]Q[/tex] can also be covered by open sets of total measure [tex]\le 1/2[/tex] in the same way. Or by an open covering of arbitrarily small total measure ...
It's strange considering that the rationals are dense in the irrationals. Yet you could leave 999/1000 of the irrationals out of the open cover ...
Laura
That, suppose you take the rationals in [0,1], call this set [tex]Q.[/tex] [tex]Q[/tex]'s a Borel set, so if [tex]\mu[/tex] is Lebesgue measure, [tex]\mu(Q)=inf(\mu(V), V [/tex]open,[tex] Q \subset V).[/tex]
[tex]Q[/tex] can be covered by open sets of total measure [tex]\le 1[/tex] by counting the rationals; cover the first rational by an interval size 1/2, the second by an interval size 1/4 ...
But, [tex]Q[/tex] can also be covered by open sets of total measure [tex]\le 1/2[/tex] in the same way. Or by an open covering of arbitrarily small total measure ...
It's strange considering that the rationals are dense in the irrationals. Yet you could leave 999/1000 of the irrationals out of the open cover ...
Laura