Why isn't this set a Borel set and why is it measurable?

310 Views Asked by At

Could someone explain to me why the set constructed as follows:

For any positive integer $n$, let $n^*$ denote the decimal rational obtained by writing the decimal form of $n$ in reverse order and then putting a decimal point before it. For example,

$2^* = 0.2, \ \ 500^* = 0.005, \ \ 1234^* = 0.4231$,etc.

Let $A$ be the set of those elements $x$ of $[0,1]$ for which there is an infinite sequence of positive integers $k_1, k_2, ..., k_n, ... $ with $k_1^* \le k_2^* \le ... \le k_n^* \le ...$ such that $x_{k_n} = 3$ for all $n$, where $x_k$ is the $k$-th digit in some decimal expansion of $x$ (that is, $x = \sum_{k \ge 1} \frac{ x_k}{10^k}$).

is not Borel but it is Leb. measurable.

There are a few sequences in $\mathbb{N}$ which quite immediately come to mind and fulfill the condition, for example: $\{1,11,111,1111, ... \}$ or $\{1, 11, 12, 13, 14,15,16,17,18,19, 119,1119,11119,...\}$ or a mix $\{1, 11, 12, 13, 14,15,16,17,18,19,29,39,49,59,69,79,89,99,999,9999,99999,...\}$, etc., etc.

So these numbers would be $0,... \ 3 \ ... \ 3 \ ... \ 3 \ ...$ with $3$s in the special places $k_n$ as described above.

I don't see how this prevents $A$ from being Borel, but still $A$ remains measurable.

I would very much appreciate an explanation that doesn't use the fact that this set is analytic, if that's all right.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On

All of these sets are closed. This follows from the following: Let $\langle k_n : n \geq 1\rangle$ be any sequence of positive integers. Then the set of reals in $[0, 1]$ that have a $3$ at their $k_n$-th digits is closed. Moreover, if the set $\{ k_n: n \geq 1 \}$ is infinite then this closed set is null.