Prob. 20, Chap. 2, in Royden's REAL ANALYSIS: Does $E$ necessarily have to have finite outer measure?

85 Views Asked by At

Here is Prob. 20, Chap. 2, in the book Real Analysis by H. L. Royden and P. M. Fitzpatrick, 4th edition:

Let $E$ have finite outer measure. Show that $E$ is measurable if and only if for each open bounded interval $(a, b)$, $$ b-a = m^* \big( (a, b) \cap E \big) + m^* \big( (a, b) \setminus E \big). \tag{1} $$

By definition of measurability, $E$ is measurable if (and only if), for any set $A$, we have the equality $$ m^*(A) = m^*(A \cap E) + m^* \left( A \cap E^c \right), $$ where $E^c = \mathbb{R} \setminus E$, that is, $$ m^*(A) = m^*(A \cap E) + m^* ( A \setminus E). $$

And, we also have $$ m^* \big( (a, b) \big) = b-a. $$

In the light of the observations in the preceding two paragraphs, is it necessary here for set $E$ to have finite outer measure?

More specifically, can we not state the following?

The set $E$---whether of finite outer measure or not---is measurable if and only if for any bounded open interval $(a, b)$, the identity (1) holds.