1

Consider the following function in the interval $[a,b]$ (between $x=a$ and $x=b$)

$$f(x)=\begin{cases}1 & x=A_1\\ 2 & x=A_2\setminus\left\{A_1\bigcap A_2\right\} \end{cases}$$

$$A_1=\left\{\left.\frac{2p+1}{2q+1}\right|p,q\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$$ $$A_2=\left\{\left.\sqrt{m}-\sqrt{n}\right|m,n\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$$

(The domain is $x=\left\{{A_1}\bigcup{A_2}\right\}$ such that all possible points in both sets are between $[a,b]$)

I want to create an integral using a measure. In most measures for 1-d functions (Lebesgue, Haar measure, Dirac Measure), countable sets have a measure of zero but this is not useful for measuring countable sets with respect to eachother.

Both $A_1$ and $A_2$ appear to meet the requirements for a measure to exist but I'm not entirely sure. I know that $A_1$ and $A_2$ can be divided into infinitely disjoint unions.

\begin{align} (1)\quad\left\{\left.\frac{2p+1}{2q+1}\right|p,q\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}=\left\{{2p+1}\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{2p+1}{3}\right\}\bigcup\left\{\frac{2p+1}{5}\right\}\bigcup{...} \end{align}

\begin{align} (2)\quad\left\{\left.\sqrt{m}-\sqrt{n}\right|m,n \in \mathbb{Z}\right\}=\left\{\sqrt{m}-\sqrt{1}\right\}\bigcup\left\{\sqrt{m}-\sqrt{2}\right\}\bigcup{...} \end{align}

So can we create a measure for $f(x)$ between $[a,b]$ that compares the measure for $A_1$ with respect to $A_2$ and vice versa? How could we apply such a measure for $f(x)$?


Currently Im not sure how to create a formal measure, so I decided to take the total sum of the number points that each of disjoint unions $\left(\text{on the right-side of the equalities} \, (1) \, \text{and} \, (2) \, \right)$ have between $[a,b]$.

I also believe that $2Q+1$ where $q$ is large and $\sqrt{N}$ where $n$ is large, we should set both values to $p$ inorder to also compare the density of $2q+1$ and $\sqrt{n}$. Hence for $2q+1=p$ we get $Q=\left\lfloor\frac{p-1}{2}\right \rfloor$ and $\sqrt{n}=p$ we have $N=\lfloor{p^2}\rfloor$.

In the case of $A_1=\left\{\left.\frac{2p+1}{2q+1}\right|m,n \in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$ we can set $A_1$ to equal $a$ and $b$ in terms of $p$. Then we can subtract the different $p$ values of $a$ and $b$ to get the number points $A_1$ has between $[a,b]$ for every $q$.

$$\begin{align} \frac{2p+1}{2q+1}=a&&\frac{2p+1}{2q+1}=b \end{align}$$

$$\begin{align} p=\frac{a(2p+1)-1}{2}&&p=\frac{b(2p+1)-1}{2} \end{align}$$

$$\begin{align} p=\left\lceil\frac{a(2p+1)-1}{2}\right\rceil&&p=\left\lfloor\frac{b(2q+1)-1}{2}\right\rfloor\end{align}$$

Substituting into $2p+1$ we should get the following sum.

$$\sum_{q=1}^{Q}\left(2\left\lfloor\frac{b(2q+1)-1}{2}\right\rfloor+1\right)-\left(2\left\lceil\frac{a(2p+1)-1}{2}\right\rceil+1\right)$$

$$(3)\quad D_{1}(p)=\sum_{q=1}^{\left\lfloor\frac{p-1}{2}\right\rfloor} 2\left\lfloor\frac{b(2q+1)-1}{2}\right\rfloor-2\left\lceil\frac{a(2p+1)-1}{2}\right\rceil$$

The same method can be done with $\left\{\left.\sqrt{m}-\sqrt{n}\right|m,n \in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$. Using $(2)$ we can solve in terms of $n$ for $b$ and $a$ and subtract both results to get the number of points $A_2$ has between $[a,b]$ for every $m$.

$$(4) \quad D_{2}(p)=\sum_{n=1}^{\left\lfloor p^2\right\rfloor} \left\lfloor{\left(b+\sqrt{n}\right)^{2}}\right\rfloor-\left\lceil{(a+\sqrt{n})^{2}}\right\rceil$$

It seems that if we take the following ratio we get $\lim_{p\to\infty}\frac{D_1(p)}{D_2(p)}=0$. Hence $D_2(q)$ is infinitely greater than $D_1(q)$. Hence $D_1(p)$ should have measure of $0$ and $D_2(p)$ should have a measure of $1$.

So by this new measure (integral), we would end up with the following.

$$0\int_{a}^{b}1+1\int_{a}^{b}2=\Bigl|_{a}^{b}x=b-a$$

Is the following the correct way of creating such a measure?

KCd
  • 46,062
Arbuja
  • 1
  • 1
    Why is this tagged with the axiom of choice tag? – Asaf Karagila Nov 02 '16 at 20:24
  • But if we compare a set of points defined on intregers to a set of points on rationals shouldn't the rationals have a measure iof one. It's infinitely more dense. – Arbuja Nov 02 '16 at 20:35
  • 1
    @Arbuja: what is $\land$ in $A_1\land{\left{A_1\bigcap A_2\right}}$? Do you mean the union of the two sets, which is simply $A_1$? Or the intersection, which is simply $A_1\cap A_2$? Or something else? – Greg Martin Nov 02 '16 at 21:12
  • @GregMartin I've made edits – Arbuja Nov 03 '16 at 01:39
  • 1
    The [tag:axiom-of-choice] tag would actually be quite appropriate, since it is used in a construction that gives a possible solution (see my answer). – Mikhail Katz Nov 03 '16 at 16:35
  • Why was my question downvoted. Is it unclear? – Arbuja Nov 05 '16 at 13:26
  • 3
    The axiom of choice tag is actually inappropriate, because you're not asking about the necessity of the axiom of choice, you're asking about something whose existence may or may not require the axiom of choice. If this would be an appropriate criteria for this tag, then far more questions would fit into this tag. Questions tagged with the axiom of choice tag are generally questions which ask about specific interactions of the axiom of choice in proofs. Just because an answer appealed, indirectly, to the axiom of choice, does not make this question about the axiom of choice. – Asaf Karagila Nov 05 '16 at 20:14
  • 2
    This question is not clear at all. What do you mean by "measure for $f$? What are the "requirements for a measure to exist"? And what measure are you talking about (with respect to which $A_1, A_2$ are positive)? The definition of $f$ does not make sense in the first place. There are all kinds of problems. – tomasz Nov 05 '16 at 20:22
  • @tomasz Here are the requirments for a measure. Look under definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) – Arbuja Nov 05 '16 at 20:52
  • @tomasz What does not make sense about this function? As I stated can we create a new measure $f(x)$? If not state why. – Arbuja Nov 05 '16 at 21:01
  • 1
    I know what is a measure, but it is not at all clear what you mean. In the definition of a function, you don't say what is the domain. It seems defined at the set ${A_1,A_2}$, but you say something about an interval, but what follows does not seem to involve it anywhere. It looks like a mess. – tomasz Nov 05 '16 at 21:05
  • @tomasz The domain is obviously $x={A_1}\bigcup{A_2}$. That should be obvious. – Arbuja Nov 05 '16 at 21:27
  • 2
    Have I said something is unclear? – Asaf Karagila Nov 06 '16 at 10:37
  • @AsafKaragila Can we apply a measure for the function stated in my post such that one set has measure of $1$ and the other set has a measure of $0$. – Arbuja Nov 08 '16 at 11:37
  • @tomasz You could just state a measure does not exist for above function. – Arbuja Nov 08 '16 at 19:12

1 Answers1

5

I find it a bit hard to follow all the details but perhaps you will find the following comment helpful. It is indeed possible to get measures that behave in a nontrivial fashion on countable subsets, and indeed the axiom of choice or some weaker forms thereof are relevant here. Namely, one can get a finitely-additive (not $\sigma$-additive) measure $\xi$ on the set of subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ such that $\xi(S)=0$ for any finite set $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ and $\xi(S)=1$ for any cofinite subset (i.e., subset with a finite complement). Here $\xi$ takes only two values, zero or one. For sets that are neither finite nor cofinite, the measure behaves in a nontrivial way but always exactly one of a pair of complementary sets has measure one. Such measures are used in ultraproduct constructions.

To apply this to the function stated in the post, one needs to include both sets in a single countable set. This can certainly be done. For example, one can take the extension $\bar {\mathbb Q}$ of $\mathbb Q$ consisting of all algebraic numbers; if you like you can just retain those that are real. This is a countable set and it obviously includes all the numbers involved in the sets you mentioned. However, which of the sets will have measure 1 and which will have measure 0 will depend on the choice of $\xi$.

Mikhail Katz
  • 42,112
  • 3
  • 66
  • 131
  • In general, in my post, I was creating a measure that sums the number of points set $A_1$ and $A_2$ can have between $[a,b]$. Then I compare the different sums and see which could have a greater measure. – Arbuja Nov 03 '16 at 16:24
  • In your answer, could you show to apply ultraproduct constructions and axiom of choice with $f(x)$. I am currently taking Calculus and have insufficient knowledge to apply these concepts. – Arbuja Nov 03 '16 at 16:25
  • 1
    Yes, so long as your countable sets are all subsets of a common countable set $X$. Then you just enumerate $X$ and use the measure $\xi$ to assign measures to your sets. – Mikhail Katz Nov 03 '16 at 16:29
  • Can this measure work for the function stated in my post? – Arbuja Nov 08 '16 at 11:29
  • Thank you for editing your post. It's unfortunate that the measure depends on choice. I understand now why lebesque and dirac measures are generally preferred. However, I do believe there are arguments where one choice of $\xi$ is preferred over others. – Arbuja Nov 08 '16 at 20:38
  • 1
    If you think the commonly held properties of the Lebesgue measure don't require the axiom of choice, think again: it is consistent with ZF that the Lebesgue measure is not countably additive, for example. – Mikhail Katz Nov 09 '16 at 14:14
  • Since ultraproduct constructions do not work for countable sets that are not subsets of one another, what other measures are available. – Arbuja Jan 14 '17 at 02:27