MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose $ 1 \leq m \leq n $ are integers and for each $ 0 < \delta < \infty $ let $\mathscr{H}^{m}_{\delta} $ be the size $ \delta $ approximating measure of the $ m $ dimensional Hausdorff measure $ \mathscr{H}^{m} $ of $ \mathbf{R}^{n} $. Recall $ \mathscr{H}^{m}(A) = \sup_{\delta > 0} \mathscr{H}^{m}_{\delta}(A) $ whenever $ A \subseteq \mathbf{R}^{n} $.

Is it true that for every Borel (compact) subset $ B \subset \mathbf{R}^{n} $ there exists $ 0 < \delta < \infty $ such that $ B $ is $ \mathscr{H}^{m}_{\delta} $ measurable?

Of course it is well known (and easy to prove) that if $ m < n $ (the case $ m = n $ is excluded because $ \mathscr{H}^{n}_{\delta} $ is equal the $ n $ dimensional Lebesgue measure for every $ 0 < \delta < \infty $) then for every $ 0 < \delta < \infty $ there exists a Borel set that is not $ \mathscr{H}^{m}_{\delta} $ measurable. For example if $ n = 2 $ and $ m= 1 $ it is not difficult to see that the boundary of an open ball with radius $ \delta/2 $ is not $ \mathscr{H}^{1}_{\delta} $ measurable.

share|cite|improve this question
    
Doesn't a non-measurable one-dimensional subset of the real line, thought of as a subset of $\mathbb R^2$ give an immediate counterexample? – Anthony Quas Jan 22 at 17:11
    
Thank you for your interest in this question. I am not sure to have got your point. When you say "non measurable" what measaure do you think about? – Longyearbyen Jan 22 at 17:45
    
$\mathcal H^1_\delta$-measurable? – Anthony Quas Jan 22 at 18:24
    
But why should this set be Borel? – Longyearbyen Jan 22 at 18:28
    
Sorry - I didn't read your question properly. – Anthony Quas Jan 22 at 18:37

There is a difference between $m = n$ and $m < n$. In case $m=n$, all the outher measures $\mathscr H^n_\delta$ are equal to the Lebesgue measure. So each Borel set in $\mathbb R^n$ is $\mathscr H^n_\delta$-measurable for all $\delta > 0$.

For $m < n$, the following is given as Exercise 2.4.5 in the book "Topics on analysis in metric spaces" by Ambrosio and Tilli. It is written there that this is due to Kirchheim:

If $\delta > 0$ and $A$ is $\mathscr H^m_\delta$-measurable, then $\mathscr H^m(A) = 0$ or $\mathscr H^m(\mathbb R^n \setminus A) = 0$.

As a particular consequence, the closed unit ball in $\mathbb R^n$ is not $\mathscr H^m_\delta$-measurable if $\delta > 0$ and $0 \leq m < n$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.