Prove that there is no finite subcover
$begingroup$
Let $I_n$ and $J_k$ be sequences of bounded intervals. $I_n$ are pairwise disjoint and $J_k$ are open. $ell(I)$ denotes the length of the bounded interval $I$.
Suppose $bigcup_{n=1}^NI_nsubsetbigcup_{k=1}^infty J_k$. Then the $J_k$ form an open cover for the set $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$.
Suppose $sum_{n=1}^Nell(I_n)>sum_{k=1}^Mell(J_k)$, for any $M$. Prove that the sets ($J_k$) form an open cover for $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$ that admits no finite subcover.
real-analysis general-topology
$endgroup$
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
Let $I_n$ and $J_k$ be sequences of bounded intervals. $I_n$ are pairwise disjoint and $J_k$ are open. $ell(I)$ denotes the length of the bounded interval $I$.
Suppose $bigcup_{n=1}^NI_nsubsetbigcup_{k=1}^infty J_k$. Then the $J_k$ form an open cover for the set $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$.
Suppose $sum_{n=1}^Nell(I_n)>sum_{k=1}^Mell(J_k)$, for any $M$. Prove that the sets ($J_k$) form an open cover for $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$ that admits no finite subcover.
real-analysis general-topology
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is $ell$? Lebesgue measure? Are these subsets of $mathbb{R}^m$?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:23
$begingroup$
$ell$ is the length of each (bounded) interval.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Ok, so these are intervals in $mathbb{R}$. Another thing is that your inequality cannot possibly hold for any $M$, more precisely it doesn't hold for $Mgeq N$, right?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
$begingroup$
There was a typo which I have now fixed.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
Every open set in the real line is a union of disjoint open intervals. Every interval is connected. So if $cup_{n=1}^N I_n$ was in $cup_{i=1}^M J_i$ for some $M$, each $I_i$ would be in an open interval because of being connected, and that would contradict your hypothesis about their lengths
$endgroup$
– User12239
Nov 29 '18 at 15:37
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
Let $I_n$ and $J_k$ be sequences of bounded intervals. $I_n$ are pairwise disjoint and $J_k$ are open. $ell(I)$ denotes the length of the bounded interval $I$.
Suppose $bigcup_{n=1}^NI_nsubsetbigcup_{k=1}^infty J_k$. Then the $J_k$ form an open cover for the set $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$.
Suppose $sum_{n=1}^Nell(I_n)>sum_{k=1}^Mell(J_k)$, for any $M$. Prove that the sets ($J_k$) form an open cover for $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$ that admits no finite subcover.
real-analysis general-topology
$endgroup$
Let $I_n$ and $J_k$ be sequences of bounded intervals. $I_n$ are pairwise disjoint and $J_k$ are open. $ell(I)$ denotes the length of the bounded interval $I$.
Suppose $bigcup_{n=1}^NI_nsubsetbigcup_{k=1}^infty J_k$. Then the $J_k$ form an open cover for the set $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$.
Suppose $sum_{n=1}^Nell(I_n)>sum_{k=1}^Mell(J_k)$, for any $M$. Prove that the sets ($J_k$) form an open cover for $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n$ that admits no finite subcover.
real-analysis general-topology
real-analysis general-topology
edited Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
Thomas
asked Nov 29 '18 at 15:17
ThomasThomas
730416
730416
$begingroup$
What is $ell$? Lebesgue measure? Are these subsets of $mathbb{R}^m$?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:23
$begingroup$
$ell$ is the length of each (bounded) interval.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Ok, so these are intervals in $mathbb{R}$. Another thing is that your inequality cannot possibly hold for any $M$, more precisely it doesn't hold for $Mgeq N$, right?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
$begingroup$
There was a typo which I have now fixed.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
Every open set in the real line is a union of disjoint open intervals. Every interval is connected. So if $cup_{n=1}^N I_n$ was in $cup_{i=1}^M J_i$ for some $M$, each $I_i$ would be in an open interval because of being connected, and that would contradict your hypothesis about their lengths
$endgroup$
– User12239
Nov 29 '18 at 15:37
|
show 9 more comments
$begingroup$
What is $ell$? Lebesgue measure? Are these subsets of $mathbb{R}^m$?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:23
$begingroup$
$ell$ is the length of each (bounded) interval.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Ok, so these are intervals in $mathbb{R}$. Another thing is that your inequality cannot possibly hold for any $M$, more precisely it doesn't hold for $Mgeq N$, right?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
$begingroup$
There was a typo which I have now fixed.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
Every open set in the real line is a union of disjoint open intervals. Every interval is connected. So if $cup_{n=1}^N I_n$ was in $cup_{i=1}^M J_i$ for some $M$, each $I_i$ would be in an open interval because of being connected, and that would contradict your hypothesis about their lengths
$endgroup$
– User12239
Nov 29 '18 at 15:37
$begingroup$
What is $ell$? Lebesgue measure? Are these subsets of $mathbb{R}^m$?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:23
$begingroup$
What is $ell$? Lebesgue measure? Are these subsets of $mathbb{R}^m$?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:23
$begingroup$
$ell$ is the length of each (bounded) interval.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24
$begingroup$
$ell$ is the length of each (bounded) interval.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Ok, so these are intervals in $mathbb{R}$. Another thing is that your inequality cannot possibly hold for any $M$, more precisely it doesn't hold for $Mgeq N$, right?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
$begingroup$
Ok, so these are intervals in $mathbb{R}$. Another thing is that your inequality cannot possibly hold for any $M$, more precisely it doesn't hold for $Mgeq N$, right?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
$begingroup$
There was a typo which I have now fixed.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
There was a typo which I have now fixed.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
Every open set in the real line is a union of disjoint open intervals. Every interval is connected. So if $cup_{n=1}^N I_n$ was in $cup_{i=1}^M J_i$ for some $M$, each $I_i$ would be in an open interval because of being connected, and that would contradict your hypothesis about their lengths
$endgroup$
– User12239
Nov 29 '18 at 15:37
$begingroup$
Every open set in the real line is a union of disjoint open intervals. Every interval is connected. So if $cup_{n=1}^N I_n$ was in $cup_{i=1}^M J_i$ for some $M$, each $I_i$ would be in an open interval because of being connected, and that would contradict your hypothesis about their lengths
$endgroup$
– User12239
Nov 29 '18 at 15:37
|
show 9 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Below is an argument for proving the statements with the given assumptions, but perhaps more interesting is the question of whether or not the assumptions can ever be satisfied, raised by @freakish in the comments. I believe the following argument shows they cannot hold as stated, so the statement is vacuously true.
Suppose there is a disjoint family of intervals $I_1$, $ldots$, $I_N$ and open intervals $J_1,ldots$ such that $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n subseteq bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m$ and yet $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$ for any $M$.
Let me dip into measure theory so that this argument isn't too clunky; I'll use $ell$ for Lebesque measure. It follows (taking limits) that $ell(bigcup I_n)= sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)geq sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)geq ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)geqell(bigcup I_n)$,
thus $ell(bigcup I_n)=sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)=ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)$. But since the $J_m$ are open intervals, this last equality is only possible if they are pairwise disjoint. (Otherwise, the series would be strictly larger by at least the length of any intersection.)
But if the $J_m$ are disjoint and open, they can only cover an interval $I_n$ if $I_nsubseteq J_m$ for some $m$ (otherwise, an interior endpoint of a $J_m$ is not covered), hence $I_n=J_m$ for some $m$.
But this leads to several contradictions (the cover must be finite and equal to $I$ and the inequality cannot hold).
Note that it suffices to show that the families $J_1,ldots, J_M$ do not cover $bigcup I_n$; any finite subcover includes a set $J_M$ of maximal index, and adding the finitely many missing sets $J_i$ with $i<M$ to the cover does not change it being a finite subcover.
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose there is an $M$ for which $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$. Let $J_{m,n}=J_mcap I_n$. Note that since $I_n$ and $J_m$ are intervals, $J_{m,n}$ is an interval thus we can consider $ell(J_{m,n})$. Since the $I_n$ are disjoint, so are the $J_{m,n}$ and thus $ell(J_m)=sum_{n=1}^N ell(J_{m,n})$.
On the other hand, since $I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$, in particular
$I_n=bigcup_{m=1}^M J_{m,n}$, so $ell(I_n)leq sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_{m,n})$.
But then $$sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)leq sum_{n=1}^Nsum_{m=1}^Mell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Msum_{n=1}^Nell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Mell(J_m)$$
which contradicts the assumption that $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n subset bigcup_{k=1}^M J_k$ for some $M in mathbb{N}$, then we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) = sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n),$$
because the intervals $I_1,ldots,I_N$ are disjoint. On the otherhand, we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) le lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^M J_m) le sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by monotonicity of measures and sub-additivity of measures. This is impossible, because
$$ sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n)> sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by assumptation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018757%2fprove-that-there-is-no-finite-subcover%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Below is an argument for proving the statements with the given assumptions, but perhaps more interesting is the question of whether or not the assumptions can ever be satisfied, raised by @freakish in the comments. I believe the following argument shows they cannot hold as stated, so the statement is vacuously true.
Suppose there is a disjoint family of intervals $I_1$, $ldots$, $I_N$ and open intervals $J_1,ldots$ such that $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n subseteq bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m$ and yet $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$ for any $M$.
Let me dip into measure theory so that this argument isn't too clunky; I'll use $ell$ for Lebesque measure. It follows (taking limits) that $ell(bigcup I_n)= sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)geq sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)geq ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)geqell(bigcup I_n)$,
thus $ell(bigcup I_n)=sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)=ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)$. But since the $J_m$ are open intervals, this last equality is only possible if they are pairwise disjoint. (Otherwise, the series would be strictly larger by at least the length of any intersection.)
But if the $J_m$ are disjoint and open, they can only cover an interval $I_n$ if $I_nsubseteq J_m$ for some $m$ (otherwise, an interior endpoint of a $J_m$ is not covered), hence $I_n=J_m$ for some $m$.
But this leads to several contradictions (the cover must be finite and equal to $I$ and the inequality cannot hold).
Note that it suffices to show that the families $J_1,ldots, J_M$ do not cover $bigcup I_n$; any finite subcover includes a set $J_M$ of maximal index, and adding the finitely many missing sets $J_i$ with $i<M$ to the cover does not change it being a finite subcover.
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose there is an $M$ for which $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$. Let $J_{m,n}=J_mcap I_n$. Note that since $I_n$ and $J_m$ are intervals, $J_{m,n}$ is an interval thus we can consider $ell(J_{m,n})$. Since the $I_n$ are disjoint, so are the $J_{m,n}$ and thus $ell(J_m)=sum_{n=1}^N ell(J_{m,n})$.
On the other hand, since $I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$, in particular
$I_n=bigcup_{m=1}^M J_{m,n}$, so $ell(I_n)leq sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_{m,n})$.
But then $$sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)leq sum_{n=1}^Nsum_{m=1}^Mell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Msum_{n=1}^Nell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Mell(J_m)$$
which contradicts the assumption that $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Below is an argument for proving the statements with the given assumptions, but perhaps more interesting is the question of whether or not the assumptions can ever be satisfied, raised by @freakish in the comments. I believe the following argument shows they cannot hold as stated, so the statement is vacuously true.
Suppose there is a disjoint family of intervals $I_1$, $ldots$, $I_N$ and open intervals $J_1,ldots$ such that $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n subseteq bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m$ and yet $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$ for any $M$.
Let me dip into measure theory so that this argument isn't too clunky; I'll use $ell$ for Lebesque measure. It follows (taking limits) that $ell(bigcup I_n)= sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)geq sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)geq ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)geqell(bigcup I_n)$,
thus $ell(bigcup I_n)=sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)=ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)$. But since the $J_m$ are open intervals, this last equality is only possible if they are pairwise disjoint. (Otherwise, the series would be strictly larger by at least the length of any intersection.)
But if the $J_m$ are disjoint and open, they can only cover an interval $I_n$ if $I_nsubseteq J_m$ for some $m$ (otherwise, an interior endpoint of a $J_m$ is not covered), hence $I_n=J_m$ for some $m$.
But this leads to several contradictions (the cover must be finite and equal to $I$ and the inequality cannot hold).
Note that it suffices to show that the families $J_1,ldots, J_M$ do not cover $bigcup I_n$; any finite subcover includes a set $J_M$ of maximal index, and adding the finitely many missing sets $J_i$ with $i<M$ to the cover does not change it being a finite subcover.
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose there is an $M$ for which $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$. Let $J_{m,n}=J_mcap I_n$. Note that since $I_n$ and $J_m$ are intervals, $J_{m,n}$ is an interval thus we can consider $ell(J_{m,n})$. Since the $I_n$ are disjoint, so are the $J_{m,n}$ and thus $ell(J_m)=sum_{n=1}^N ell(J_{m,n})$.
On the other hand, since $I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$, in particular
$I_n=bigcup_{m=1}^M J_{m,n}$, so $ell(I_n)leq sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_{m,n})$.
But then $$sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)leq sum_{n=1}^Nsum_{m=1}^Mell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Msum_{n=1}^Nell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Mell(J_m)$$
which contradicts the assumption that $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Below is an argument for proving the statements with the given assumptions, but perhaps more interesting is the question of whether or not the assumptions can ever be satisfied, raised by @freakish in the comments. I believe the following argument shows they cannot hold as stated, so the statement is vacuously true.
Suppose there is a disjoint family of intervals $I_1$, $ldots$, $I_N$ and open intervals $J_1,ldots$ such that $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n subseteq bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m$ and yet $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$ for any $M$.
Let me dip into measure theory so that this argument isn't too clunky; I'll use $ell$ for Lebesque measure. It follows (taking limits) that $ell(bigcup I_n)= sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)geq sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)geq ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)geqell(bigcup I_n)$,
thus $ell(bigcup I_n)=sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)=ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)$. But since the $J_m$ are open intervals, this last equality is only possible if they are pairwise disjoint. (Otherwise, the series would be strictly larger by at least the length of any intersection.)
But if the $J_m$ are disjoint and open, they can only cover an interval $I_n$ if $I_nsubseteq J_m$ for some $m$ (otherwise, an interior endpoint of a $J_m$ is not covered), hence $I_n=J_m$ for some $m$.
But this leads to several contradictions (the cover must be finite and equal to $I$ and the inequality cannot hold).
Note that it suffices to show that the families $J_1,ldots, J_M$ do not cover $bigcup I_n$; any finite subcover includes a set $J_M$ of maximal index, and adding the finitely many missing sets $J_i$ with $i<M$ to the cover does not change it being a finite subcover.
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose there is an $M$ for which $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$. Let $J_{m,n}=J_mcap I_n$. Note that since $I_n$ and $J_m$ are intervals, $J_{m,n}$ is an interval thus we can consider $ell(J_{m,n})$. Since the $I_n$ are disjoint, so are the $J_{m,n}$ and thus $ell(J_m)=sum_{n=1}^N ell(J_{m,n})$.
On the other hand, since $I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$, in particular
$I_n=bigcup_{m=1}^M J_{m,n}$, so $ell(I_n)leq sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_{m,n})$.
But then $$sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)leq sum_{n=1}^Nsum_{m=1}^Mell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Msum_{n=1}^Nell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Mell(J_m)$$
which contradicts the assumption that $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$.
$endgroup$
Below is an argument for proving the statements with the given assumptions, but perhaps more interesting is the question of whether or not the assumptions can ever be satisfied, raised by @freakish in the comments. I believe the following argument shows they cannot hold as stated, so the statement is vacuously true.
Suppose there is a disjoint family of intervals $I_1$, $ldots$, $I_N$ and open intervals $J_1,ldots$ such that $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_n subseteq bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m$ and yet $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$ for any $M$.
Let me dip into measure theory so that this argument isn't too clunky; I'll use $ell$ for Lebesque measure. It follows (taking limits) that $ell(bigcup I_n)= sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)geq sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)geq ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)geqell(bigcup I_n)$,
thus $ell(bigcup I_n)=sum_{m=1}^infty ell(J_m)=ell(bigcup_{m=1}^{infty} J_m)$. But since the $J_m$ are open intervals, this last equality is only possible if they are pairwise disjoint. (Otherwise, the series would be strictly larger by at least the length of any intersection.)
But if the $J_m$ are disjoint and open, they can only cover an interval $I_n$ if $I_nsubseteq J_m$ for some $m$ (otherwise, an interior endpoint of a $J_m$ is not covered), hence $I_n=J_m$ for some $m$.
But this leads to several contradictions (the cover must be finite and equal to $I$ and the inequality cannot hold).
Note that it suffices to show that the families $J_1,ldots, J_M$ do not cover $bigcup I_n$; any finite subcover includes a set $J_M$ of maximal index, and adding the finitely many missing sets $J_i$ with $i<M$ to the cover does not change it being a finite subcover.
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose there is an $M$ for which $bigcup_{n=1}^N I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$. Let $J_{m,n}=J_mcap I_n$. Note that since $I_n$ and $J_m$ are intervals, $J_{m,n}$ is an interval thus we can consider $ell(J_{m,n})$. Since the $I_n$ are disjoint, so are the $J_{m,n}$ and thus $ell(J_m)=sum_{n=1}^N ell(J_{m,n})$.
On the other hand, since $I_nsubseteq bigcup_{m=1}^M J_m$, in particular
$I_n=bigcup_{m=1}^M J_{m,n}$, so $ell(I_n)leq sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_{m,n})$.
But then $$sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)leq sum_{n=1}^Nsum_{m=1}^Mell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Msum_{n=1}^Nell(J_{m,n})=sum_{m=1}^Mell(J_m)$$
which contradicts the assumption that $sum_{n=1}^N ell(I_n)>sum_{m=1}^M ell(J_m)$.
edited Nov 29 '18 at 18:40
answered Nov 29 '18 at 16:09
Sean ClarkSean Clark
1,883813
1,883813
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n subset bigcup_{k=1}^M J_k$ for some $M in mathbb{N}$, then we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) = sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n),$$
because the intervals $I_1,ldots,I_N$ are disjoint. On the otherhand, we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) le lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^M J_m) le sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by monotonicity of measures and sub-additivity of measures. This is impossible, because
$$ sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n)> sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by assumptation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n subset bigcup_{k=1}^M J_k$ for some $M in mathbb{N}$, then we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) = sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n),$$
because the intervals $I_1,ldots,I_N$ are disjoint. On the otherhand, we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) le lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^M J_m) le sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by monotonicity of measures and sub-additivity of measures. This is impossible, because
$$ sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n)> sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by assumptation.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n subset bigcup_{k=1}^M J_k$ for some $M in mathbb{N}$, then we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) = sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n),$$
because the intervals $I_1,ldots,I_N$ are disjoint. On the otherhand, we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) le lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^M J_m) le sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by monotonicity of measures and sub-additivity of measures. This is impossible, because
$$ sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n)> sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by assumptation.
$endgroup$
Suppose $bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n subset bigcup_{k=1}^M J_k$ for some $M in mathbb{N}$, then we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) = sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n),$$
because the intervals $I_1,ldots,I_N$ are disjoint. On the otherhand, we have
$$lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^N I_n) le lambda(bigcup_{k=1}^M J_m) le sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by monotonicity of measures and sub-additivity of measures. This is impossible, because
$$ sum_{k=1}^N lambda(I_n)> sum_{k=1}^M lambda(J_k)$$
by assumptation.
answered Nov 29 '18 at 16:09
p4schp4sch
4,980217
4,980217
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018757%2fprove-that-there-is-no-finite-subcover%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
What is $ell$? Lebesgue measure? Are these subsets of $mathbb{R}^m$?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:23
$begingroup$
$ell$ is the length of each (bounded) interval.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:24
$begingroup$
Ok, so these are intervals in $mathbb{R}$. Another thing is that your inequality cannot possibly hold for any $M$, more precisely it doesn't hold for $Mgeq N$, right?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Nov 29 '18 at 15:26
$begingroup$
There was a typo which I have now fixed.
$endgroup$
– Thomas
Nov 29 '18 at 15:28
$begingroup$
Every open set in the real line is a union of disjoint open intervals. Every interval is connected. So if $cup_{n=1}^N I_n$ was in $cup_{i=1}^M J_i$ for some $M$, each $I_i$ would be in an open interval because of being connected, and that would contradict your hypothesis about their lengths
$endgroup$
– User12239
Nov 29 '18 at 15:37