Why Isn't A^c the Empty Set in This Measure Theory Example?

In summary, the conversation is about a question regarding an example in Probability and Measure by Patrick Billingsley. The example involves a set A with intervals as elements, and the question is about the complement of A, denoted as A^c. The formula given states that A^c = (0,a_1]U(a'_1, a_2]U...U(a'_m-1, a_m]U(a'_m, 1], which leads to the discussion of whether A^c is an empty set or not. The conclusion is that A^c is indeed an empty set, as (0,0]=∅ and (1,1]=∅.
  • #1
woundedtiger4
188
0
Hi all,
I am reading Probability and Measure by Patrick Billingsley, and I am stuck at one example, please help me understanding it.
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg201/scaled.php?server=201&filename=30935274.jpg&res=landing
Ω=(0,1]
My question is that how come the A^c = (0,a_1]U(a'_1, a_2]U...U(a'_m-1, a_m]U(a'_m, 1] ? because let's say that A= {(0,0.1], (0.2, 0.3], (0.4, 0.5], (0.6, 0.7], (0.8, 1]} then
A^c = Ω - A
A^c = (0, 1] - {(0,0.1], (0.2, 0.3], (0.4, 0.5], (0.6, 0.7], (0.8, 1]}
A^c = ∅ ...an empty set?

You can see this example at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...q=probability and measure billingsley&f=false
Example no 2.2 (section: Probability Measure), page 21.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
woundedtiger4 said:
A= {(0,0.1], (0.2, 0.3], (0.4, 0.5], (0.6, 0.7], (0.8, 1]}

What does this even mean? A is a set with intervals as elements?? That's not what Billingsley means.
 
  • #3
Please ignore this post, as it is wrong

If you mean

[tex]A=(0,0.1]\cup (0.2, 0.3]\cup (0.4, 0.5]\cup (0.6, 0.7]\cup (0.8, 1][/tex]

then yes, Ac is the empty set, because A=(0,1].
 
Last edited:
  • #4
micromass said:
If you mean

[tex]A=(0,0.1]\cup (0.2, 0.3]\cup (0.4, 0.5]\cup (0.6, 0.7]\cup (0.8, 1][/tex]

then yes, Ac is the empty set, because A=(0,1].

Sorry for the typing mistake, yes I mean union. but then why text says A^c = (0,a_1]U(a'_1, a_2]U...U(a'_m-1, a_m]U(a'_m, 1] , why does the complement have 0 & 1 in text ?

[STRIKE]Perhaps I am also wrong of being making the A^c = empty set because Ω contains only 0 & 1 so shouldn't it be A^c = {(0.1, 0.2], (0.3, 0.4], (0.5, 0.6], (0.7, 0.8]} ?[/STRIKE]
 
Last edited:
  • #5
If [itex]A=(0,0.1]\cup (0.2, 0.3]\cup (0.4, 0.5]\cup (0.6, 0.7]\cup (0.8, 1][/itex], then the formula given states that [itex]A^{c} = (0, 0] \cup (.1, .2] \cup (.3, .4] \cup (.5, .6] \cup (.7, .8] \cup (1, 1][/itex], which is correct.
 
  • #6
Citan Uzuki said:
If [itex]A=(0,0.1]\cup (0.2, 0.3]\cup (0.4, 0.5]\cup (0.6, 0.7]\cup (0.8, 1][/itex], then the formula given states that [itex]A^{c} = (0, 0] \cup (.1, .2] \cup (.3, .4] \cup (.5, .6] \cup (.7, .8] \cup (1, 1][/itex], which is correct.

OK
So,
If a1=0, then
A^c=(0,0]∪(a1′,a2]∪...∪(am′,1]=(a1′,a2]∪...∪(am′,1]
since (0,0]=∅. Likewise, if am′=1 we have
A^c=(0,a1]∪(a1′,a2]∪...∪(1,1]=(0,a1]∪...∪(am−1′,am]
since (1,1]=∅
 
  • #7
micromass said:
If you mean

[tex]A=(0,0.1]\cup (0.2, 0.3]\cup (0.4, 0.5]\cup (0.6, 0.7]\cup (0.8, 1][/tex]

then yes, Ac is the empty set, because A=(0,1].
How comes? Shouldn't
Ac = {0} U (0.1, 0.2] U (0.3, 0.4] U (0.5, 0.6] U (0.7, 0.8] ?
 
  • #8
woundedtiger4 said:
...since (0,0]=∅...

I think (0,0]= {0}.
 
  • #9
xAxis said:
How comes? Shouldn't
Ac = {0} U (0.1, 0.2] U (0.3, 0.4] U (0.5, 0.6] U (0.7, 0.8] ?
No. (0,0] is the empty set. Other than that, you are correct, as is Citan Uzuki in post #5.
 

Related to Why Isn't A^c the Empty Set in This Measure Theory Example?

What is measure theory?

Measure theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with the concepts of measuring and assigning numerical values to sets and functions.

Why is measure theory important?

Measure theory is important because it provides a rigorous mathematical framework for understanding and analyzing the concepts of size, volume, and probability in various fields such as physics, economics, and statistics.

What are the main concepts in measure theory?

The main concepts in measure theory include measures, measurable sets, and measurable functions. Measures are used to assign numerical values to sets, while measurable sets are those for which a measure can be defined. Measurable functions are functions whose pre-images of measurable sets are also measurable.

What are the differences between Lebesgue measure and Borel measure?

Lebesgue measure is a type of measure that is used to assign length, area, or volume to sets in Euclidean space. Borel measure is a more general type of measure that can be applied to a wider range of sets, including those that are not measurable by Lebesgue measure. Borel measure is also used to define the Lebesgue measure itself.

How is measure theory used in real-world applications?

Measure theory has many real-world applications, such as in physics for measuring quantities like mass, volume, and energy. It is also used in economics for measuring consumer preferences and demand, and in statistics for defining probability measures and analyzing data. In computer science, measure theory is used for analyzing algorithms and data structures.

Similar threads

Back
Top