Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Half Measure
Replies: 14   Last Post: Mar 25, 2013 5:03 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
JT

Posts: 1,042
Registered: 4/7/12
Re: Half Measure and Correction
Posted: Mar 25, 2013 5:03 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 25 mar, 14:07, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:55:12 -0700 (PDT), Butch Malahide
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Mar 24, 1:49 pm, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT), Butch Malahide
> >> > <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 24, 10:53 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu>
> >> >wrote:

> >> >> [. . .]
> >> >> So the more interesting version of the question,
> >> >> in any case less trivial, amounts to this: Is there
> >> >> a measurable set D such that

>
> >> >> 0 < m(D intersect I) < m(I)
>
> >> >> for every open interval I,
>
> >> >Didn't we just have that thread?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/0cfe35786f2279f0?hl=en
>
> >> >> and such that m(D intersect [0,1]) = 1/2 ?
>
> >> >OK, that's different.
>
> >> Precisely! heh.
>
> >But not so very different, is it?
>
> I was joking. Of course once we know that there exists
> D with 0 < m(D intersect I) < m(I) for every interval I it
> follows that there exists such a D with the second condition.
>
> By any of at least three arguments:
>
> 1. The one I had in mind.
>
> 2. The one you give below.
>
> 3. By saying "Fine, now how in the world could
> it be that the value 1/2 is somehow excluded?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >Let D be a measurable set such that
> >0 < m(D intersect I) < m(I) for every interval I. It will suffice to
> >find an interval I such that m(D intersect I)/m(I) = 1/2. Since m(D) >
> >0, there is an interval J such that m(D intersect J)/m(J) > 1/2;
> >likewise, since m{R\D) > 0, there is an interval H such that m(D
> >intersect H)/m(H) < 1/2. Since the function f(a,b) = m(D intersect
> >(a,b))/(b-a) is continuous on the connected domain {(a,b): a < b},
> >there is an interval I = (a,b) such that f(a,b) = 1/2.


You are all of course free to add and subtract null quantities to
eachother (and even try add them to numbers), even multiply then but
when you start to divide them and raise numbers into power of zero it
start to raise my suspicion something really went terribly wrong along
the way.




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.