4

Let $S\subseteq [0,1]^2$ be a measurable set that satisfies the following.

  • It is symmetric, i.e., $(x,y)\in S$ if and only if $(y,x)\in S$ for every $(x,y)\in [0,1]^2$.
  • For almost all $x\in[0,1]$, the ($1$-dimensional Lebesgue) measure of the $x$-section of $S$, i.e., the set $S_x=\{y\in [0,1]:(x,y)\in S\}$, is equal to $x$. (Note that since $S$ is measurable, $S_x$ is measurable for almost all $x\in[0,1]$.)

Does it follow that for almost all $(x,y)\in[0,1]^2$, we have $(x,y)\in S$ if and only if $x+y\geq 1$? In other words, is $S$ equal to $\{(x,y)\in[0,1]^2:x+y\geq 1\}$ up to a null-set?

JS_
  • 393
  • 1
    The assertion does hold for the discrete version of the problem (though this fact may not be of any help for the OP): If $S$ is a symmetric subset of ${1,2,\ldots,n}^2$ such that the section of $S$ through $k$ has exactly $k$ elements, then $S={(j,k)\in{1,2,\ldots,n}^2: j+k\ge n+1}$. This follows by induction through the columns of $S$, starting at the far right. $S_n$, having $n$ elements, must be equal to ${1,2,\ldots,n}$. $S_{n-1}$ has $n-1$ elements, but cannot contain $1$, else the horizontal section $S^1$ would contain both $n$ and $n-1$. Thus $S_{n-1}={2,3,\ldots,n}$, etc. – John Dawkins Sep 04 '17 at 19:39
  • Yes, this is true. However, I do not see how to translate this into the continuous case. – JS_ Sep 10 '17 at 17:02
  • An “isomorphism” between continuous and discrete mathematics does hold in all scientific applications, for example in Physics, where the Discrete and the Continuous are just two ways of looking at the same thing. Therefore I've been wondering why the jump from discrete to continuous seems to be so troublesome for mathematicians, while it is almost trivial for physicists. – Han de Bruijn Sep 10 '17 at 18:52
  • So yes, if the question does make any sense outside mathematics, then continuous case simply follows from the discrete case. – Han de Bruijn Sep 10 '17 at 18:56
  • @HandeBruijn I do not agree you can make such a general statement that the discrete case implies continuous case "in all scientific applications." One immediate counterexample that comes to my mind is the dichotomy between integer programming (discrete case; hard to solve) and its relaxation to linear programming (continuous case; easy to solve). You can prove various results about optima of linear programming instances, while the integer programming case is much much more difficult. And this is very relevant outside of mathematics. – JS_ Sep 10 '17 at 20:21
  • You beat me. Perhaps I should have said that there is no physical difference between dense rationals and reals. And integers divided by a large scaling factor may be such rationals. Or something the like. – Han de Bruijn Sep 11 '17 at 09:26

3 Answers3

2

You can reduce to a finitary problem similar to John Dawkins' comment.

Lemma. If $A_{i,j}\in [0,1]^{n\times n}$ satisfies $$\sum_{i=1}^n A_{i,j}=\sum_{i=1}^n A_{j,i}=j-\tfrac 1 2\text{ for all $1\leq j\leq n$.}$$ then $$A_{i,j}=\begin{cases} 0&\text{ when }(i-\tfrac 1 2)+(j-\tfrac 1 2)<n\\ \tfrac 1 2&\text{ when }(i-\tfrac 1 2)+(j-\tfrac 1 2)=n\\ 1 &\text{ when }(i-\tfrac 1 2)+(j-\tfrac 1 2)>n. \end{cases}$$ Proof. The first column sums to $\tfrac 1 2$, so $A_{1,n}\leq \tfrac 1 2$, but the last row sums to $n-\tfrac 1 2$, so $A_{1,n}\geq \tfrac 1 2$. These inequalities match so they become equalities, which shows that $A_{i,j}$ takes the correct values when $j=n$, and a symmetric argument shows that the values are also correct when $i=n$. The result follows by induction on $n$ and removing the last row and column.

To get the measure theoretic result, use Fubini's theorem to show that for each $n$ the matrix defined by $A_{i,j}=n^2 \mu(S\cap ([\tfrac {i-1}n,\tfrac i n]\times[\tfrac {j-1}n,\tfrac j n]))$ satisfies the conditions of the lemma. This gives $\mu(S\cap Q)=\mu(S^*\cap Q)$ for all axis-aligned squares $Q$ with rational co-ordinates, where $S^*=\{(x,y)\in[0,1]^2:x+y\geq 1\}$.

Such squares generate the sigma algebra so this shows that the indicator functions $\chi_S$ and $\chi_{S^*}$ are equal almost everywhere, which implies that $S\triangle S^*$ is a null set.

It is not necessary to assume that $S$ is symmetric, just that the "row sums" and "column sums" are correct almost everywhere.

Dap
  • 25,286
2

Here is a proof without any discretization. Let $\chi_S$ be the indicator function of $S$. Consider $$I(S)=\int_{[0,1]^2} (2\chi_S(x,y)-1)(x+y-1).$$

We can show that $I(S)=I(S^*)$ where $S^*=\{(x,y)\in[0,1]^2:x+y\geq 1\}$: $$ \begin{align*} I(S)&=\int_0^1\int_0^1 (2\chi_S(x,y)-1)(x-\tfrac 1 2) dydx+\int_0^1\int_0^1 (2\chi_S(x,y)-1)(y-\tfrac 1 2) dxdy\\ &=2 \int_0^1\int_0^1 (2\chi_S(x,y)-1)(x-\tfrac 1 2) dydx\text{ (by symmetry of $S$)}\\ &=2 \int_0^1(2\int_0^1 \chi_S(x,y)dy-1)(x-\tfrac 1 2) dx\\ &=I(S^*) \end{align*} $$ using$\int_0^1 \chi_S(x,y)dy=\int_0^1 \chi_{S^*}(x,y)dy$ for almost every $x$. (In fact $I(S^*)=1/3$, but that is irrelevant to the proof.)

On the other hand, $$|(2\chi_S-1)(x+y-1)|=|x+y-1|=(2\chi_{S^*}-1)(x+y-1)$$ so, taking absolute values: $$I(S)\leq \int_{[0,1]^2} (2\chi_{S^*}-1)(x+y-1) = I(S^*).$$

But we know $I(S)=I(S^*)$, so $$(2\chi_S(x,y)-1)(x+y-1)=(2\chi_{S^*}-1)(x+y-1)$$ almost everywhere. Since $x+y\neq 1$ almost everywhere, this forces $\chi_S(x,y)=\chi_{S^*}(x,y)$ almost everywhere, which implies that $S\triangle S^*$ is a null set.

Again the symmetry isn't really necessary - the proof could be modified to only use that the $x$ and $y$ marginals are correct.

Dap
  • 25,286
2

There is a simple proof that uses more directly the given information:

For $0<t<1$, consider the rectangles $A = [0,t] \times [0,1]$ and $B=[0,1]\times [1-t,1]$. Then by the given information on sections of $S$ we have using Fubini: $\lambda(S\cap A) = \int_0^t x\;dx = \frac{t^2}{2}$ and $\lambda (S\cap B) = \int_{1-t}^2 y\; dy = t-\frac{t^2}{2}$ so: $$ \lambda(S\cap A\cap B)\leq \lambda (S\cap A) \leq \frac{t^2}{2} .$$ On the other hand $\lambda(B\setminus A)= \lambda([t,1]\times[1-t,1]) = t-t^2$ so $$\lambda(S\cap A\cap B) = \lambda(S\cap B) - \lambda ( S\cap (B\setminus A)) \geq \lambda(S\cap B) - \lambda(B\setminus A) = \frac{t^2}{2}.$$ We must therefore have equality everywhere so in particular: $$ \lambda(S\cap (B\setminus A)) = \lambda(B\setminus A)\; \mbox{ and } \; \lambda (S\cap (A\setminus B)) = 0.$$ In other words for any $t\in (0,1)$, $S$ has full measure when restricted to the set $B\setminus A= [t,1]\times [1-t,1]$ and zero measure in $A\setminus B = [0,t]\times [0,1-t]$. Varying $t$ we see that a.e. point in $\{(x,y) \in [0,1]\times[0,1] : x+y\geq 1 \}$ belongs to $S$ (and only a zero measure subset in the complement).

H. H. Rugh
  • 35,236
  • Yes, this is the most direct and clean of the proofs! And also has a clear geometric interpretation. Thanks! – JS_ Sep 15 '17 at 10:08