TheoremBase

Proof of Uniform Grids on a Half-Open Box and Grid Hulls of a Compact Set in Rn\mathbb{R}^n

lemmalem:grid-hull-compact-rn-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v2Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
· 11,253 chars · 26 deps · depth 15 Reason: Proof of the uniform grid and grid-hull lemma: cells are products of half-open intervals, the covering and disjointness come from the greatest admissible index in each coordinate, and the exhaustion property follows from compactness with continuity of the measure from above.

Each cell is a product of half-open intervals, so its measure and diameter are computed from the interval measure and the coordinate expansion of the norm; the covering and disjointness come from taking the greatest admissible index in each coordinate; refinement follows from the same device applied to the doubled mesh; and the exhaustion property follows from compactness together with continuity of the measure from above, derived from continuity from below.

Proof

Conventions. Natural numbers are read as real numbers through the canonical map ι\iota of The Canonical Map from the Natural Numbers to a Field, as in claim 3 of The Real Numbers and Standard Notation. We use the following transfer facts without further comment. By claims 6 and 7 of Properties of the Canonical Map from the Natural Numbers to an Ordered Field together with the trichotomy of the order on N\mathbb{N} (claim 3 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers), for k,lNk,l\in\mathbb{N} one has k<lk<l in N\mathbb{N} if and only if ι(k)<ι(l)\iota(k)<\iota(l) in R\mathbb{R}, and likewise for \le. If k<lk<l in N\mathbb{N} then k+1lk+1\le l: otherwise trichotomy gives l<k+1=S(k)l<k+1=S(k), so claim 5 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers gives lkl\le k, which with klk\le l forces k=lk=l by claim 2 there, contradicting k<lk<l. Finally ι(k+1)=ι(k)+1\iota(k+1)=\iota(k)+1 by claim 1 of Properties of the Canonical Map from the Natural Numbers to an Ordered Field, and 1ι(k)1\le\iota(k) by claim 2 there. Finally, the order \le on R\mathbb{R} is a total order, because by Ordered Field the order of an ordered field is one.

Fix mNm\in\mathbb{N} and put h=s/mh=s/m; since 0<s0<s and 0<m0<m (claim 3 of Properties of the Canonical Map from the Natural Numbers to an Ordered Field), hh is a positive real number, and mh=smh=s. For j[m]nj\in[m]^{n} and i[n]i\in[n] write

ai(j)=ci+(ji1)h,bi(j)=ci+jih,bi(j)ai(j)=h,a_{i}(j)=c_{i}+(j_{i}-1)h,\qquad b_{i}(j)=c_{i}+j_{i}h,\qquad b_{i}(j)-a_{i}(j)=h,

so that Qm,j={xRn:ai(j)xi<bi(j)  for every i[n]}Q_{m,j}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:a_{i}(j)\le x_{i}<b_{i}(j)\ \text{ for every }i\in[n]\}.

Proof of claim 1.

(a) [m]n[m]^{n} is nonempty and finite. The set [m][m] has mm elements by claim 1 of Basic Properties of Finite Sets, hence is finite, and it is nonempty because 1m1\le m by claim 4 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers. Claim 3 of Finiteness of Cartesian Products, Tuple Sets, and Permutation Sets now gives that [m]n[m]^{n} is nonempty and finite.

(b) Each cell is Borel of measure hnh^{n}. Fix j[m]nj\in[m]^{n} and i[n]i\in[n], and put Ii={tR:ai(j)t<bi(j)}I_{i}=\{t\in\mathbb{R}:a_{i}(j)\le t<b_{i}(j)\}. If uvwu\le v\le w with u,wIiu,w\in I_{i}, then ai(j)uva_{i}(j)\le u\le v and vw<bi(j)v\le w<b_{i}(j), so vIiv\in I_{i}; thus IiI_{i} is an interval with endpoints ai(j)bi(j)a_{i}(j)\le b_{i}(j), and claim 4 of Existence of Lebesgue Measure on the Real Line shows that IiI_{i} is a Borel subset of R\mathbb{R} with λ(Ii)=bi(j)ai(j)=h\lambda(I_{i})=b_{i}(j)-a_{i}(j)=h. Since Qm,j=I1××InQ_{m,j}=I_{1}\times\dots\times I_{n}, Lebesgue Measure on Rn\mathbb{R}^n gives Qm,jB(Rn)Q_{m,j}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) and

λn(Qm,j)=λ(I1)λ(In)=hn.\lambda_{n}(Q_{m,j})=\lambda(I_{1})\cdots\lambda(I_{n})=h^{n}.

(c) Diameter bound. Let x,yQm,jx,y\in Q_{m,j} and i[n]i\in[n]. From ai(j)xi<bi(j)a_{i}(j)\le x_{i}<b_{i}(j) and ai(j)yi<bi(j)a_{i}(j)\le y_{i}<b_{i}(j) we get h<xiyi<h-h<x_{i}-y_{i}<h, hence xiyih|x_{i}-y_{i}|\le h and therefore (xiyi)2=xiyi2h2(x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}=|x_{i}-y_{i}|^{2}\le h^{2} by claim 2 of Monotonicity of Squaring on the Nonnegative Elements of an Ordered Field. Summing over ii and using claim 1 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n,

xy2=i=1n(xiyi)2nh2=σn2h2=(σnh)2.\lVert x-y\rVert^{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\le n\,h^{2}=\sigma_{n}^{2}h^{2}=(\sigma_{n}h)^{2}.

As xy\lVert x-y\rVert and σnh\sigma_{n}h are nonnegative, claim 2 of Monotonicity of Squaring on the Nonnegative Elements of an Ordered Field gives xyσnh\lVert x-y\rVert\le\sigma_{n}h.

(d) Pairwise disjointness. Let j,j[m]nj,j'\in[m]^{n} with jjj\ne j', and suppose xQm,jQm,jx\in Q_{m,j}\cap Q_{m,j'}. Choose i[n]i\in[n] with jijij_{i}\ne j'_{i}; by trichotomy we may assume ji<jij_{i}<j'_{i}, and then ji+1jij_{i}+1\le j'_{i}. Since 0<h0<h,

bi(j)=ci+((ji+1)1)hci+(ji1)h=ai(j),b_{i}(j)=c_{i}+\bigl((j_{i}+1)-1\bigr)h\le c_{i}+(j'_{i}-1)h=a_{i}(j'),

so xi<bi(j)ai(j)xix_{i}<b_{i}(j)\le a_{i}(j')\le x_{i}, which is impossible.

(e) The union of the cells is BB. If xQm,jx\in Q_{m,j} with j[m]nj\in[m]^{n}, then for each ii we have 1ji1\le j_{i}, so 0ji10\le j_{i}-1 and ciai(j)xic_{i}\le a_{i}(j)\le x_{i}; and jimj_{i}\le m, so xi<bi(j)ci+mh=ci+sx_{i}<b_{i}(j)\le c_{i}+mh=c_{i}+s. Hence xBx\in B.

Conversely let xBx\in B and fix i[n]i\in[n]. Put Ai={k[m]:ci+(k1)hxi}A_{i}=\{k\in[m]:c_{i}+(k-1)h\le x_{i}\}. As cixic_{i}\le x_{i} we have 1Ai1\in A_{i}, so AiA_{i} is nonempty, and Ai[m]A_{i}\subseteq[m] is finite by claim 3 of Basic Properties of Finite Sets. Let qq be its number of elements and f:[q]Aif:[q]\to A_{i} a bijection; regarding ιf\iota\circ f as a qq-tuple in R\mathbb{R} with its total order, Greatest Element of a Finite Family in a Totally Ordered Set provides t[q]t\in[q] with f(u)f(t)f(u)\le f(t) for every u[q]u\in[q]. Put ji=f(t)j_{i}=f(t), an element of AiA_{i}. Since ff maps [q][q] onto AiA_{i}, every kAik\in A_{i} equals f(u)f(u) for some u[q]u\in[q], so kjik\le j_{i} for every kAik\in A_{i}; and jij_{i} is the unique element of AiA_{i} with that property, because two elements of AiA_{i} each at least the other are equal by antisymmetry.

By definition of AiA_{i} we have ai(j)=ci+(ji1)hxia_{i}(j)=c_{i}+(j_{i}-1)h\le x_{i}. Suppose xi<ci+jihx_{i}<c_{i}+j_{i}h failed, that is, ci+jihxic_{i}+j_{i}h\le x_{i}. If ji=mj_{i}=m this reads ci+sxic_{i}+s\le x_{i}, contradicting xBx\in B. Otherwise jimj_{i}\ne m, and since jimj_{i}\le m trichotomy gives ji<mj_{i}<m and hence ji+1mj_{i}+1\le m, so ji+1[m]j_{i}+1\in[m]; moreover ci+((ji+1)1)h=ci+jihxic_{i}+\bigl((j_{i}+1)-1\bigr)h=c_{i}+j_{i}h\le x_{i}, so ji+1Aij_{i}+1\in A_{i} and therefore ji+1jij_{i}+1\le j_{i}, which is false. Hence xi<ci+jihx_{i}<c_{i}+j_{i}h.

Carrying this out for every i[n]i\in[n] determines j=(j1,,jn)[m]nj=(j_{1},\dots,j_{n})\in[m]^{n} with xQm,jx\in Q_{m,j}. This completes the proof of claim 1.

Proof of claim 2. Let mNm\in\mathbb{N} and j[2m]nj'\in[2m]^{n}, and write h=s/mh=s/m and h=s/(2m)h'=s/(2m), so that h=2hh=2h' and 0<h0<h'. Fix i[n]i\in[n] and put Ai={k[m]:2k1ji}A'_{i}=\{k\in[m]:2k-1\le j'_{i}\}. Since 1ji1\le j'_{i} and 211=12\cdot 1-1=1, we have 1Ai1\in A'_{i}, so AiA'_{i} is a nonempty subset of the finite set [m][m]; exactly as in part (e) above, let jij_{i} be its greatest element. Then

2ji1ji.2j_{i}-1\le j'_{i}.

We check that also ji2jij'_{i}\le 2j_{i}. If ji=mj_{i}=m this is ji2mj'_{i}\le 2m, which holds since ji[2m]j'_{i}\in[2m]. Otherwise ji<mj_{i}<m, so ji+1[m]j_{i}+1\in[m], and maximality gives ji+1Aij_{i}+1\notin A'_{i}, that is, ji<2(ji+1)1=2ji+1j'_{i}<2(j_{i}+1)-1=2j_{i}+1. Both jij'_{i} and 2ji2j_{i} are integers by claims 1 and 2 of Arithmetic, Order and Discreteness of the Integers, so 2ji<ji2j_{i}<j'_{i} would give 2ji+1ji2j_{i}+1\le j'_{i} by claim 3 there, contradicting the previous inequality; hence ji2jij'_{i}\le 2j_{i}.

Now let yQ2m,jy\in Q_{2m,j'} and i[n]i\in[n]. From 2ji2ji12j_{i}-2\le j'_{i}-1 and 0<h0<h',

ci+(ji1)h=ci+(2ji2)hci+(ji1)hyi,c_{i}+(j_{i}-1)h=c_{i}+(2j_{i}-2)h'\le c_{i}+(j'_{i}-1)h'\le y_{i},

and from ji2jij'_{i}\le 2j_{i},

yi<ci+jihci+2jih=ci+jih.y_{i}<c_{i}+j'_{i}h'\le c_{i}+2j_{i}h'=c_{i}+j_{i}h .

Hence yQm,jy\in Q_{m,j}, so Q2m,jQm,jQ_{2m,j'}\subseteq Q_{m,j} with j=(j1,,jn)[m]nj=(j_{1},\dots,j_{n})\in[m]^{n}.

For uniqueness, note that Q2m,jQ_{2m,j'} is nonempty: the point whose iith coordinate is ci+(ji1)hc_{i}+(j'_{i}-1)h' lies in it, because 0<h0<h'. Since by claim 1 the cells Qm,jQ_{m,j}, j[m]nj\in[m]^{n}, are pairwise disjoint, at most one of them can contain the nonempty set Q2m,jQ_{2m,j'}.

Proof of claim 3. The set JmJ_{m} is a subset of the finite set [m]n[m]^{n}, hence finite by claim 3 of Basic Properties of Finite Sets. It is nonempty: choosing xKBx\in K\subseteq B, claim 1 gives j[m]nj\in[m]^{n} with xQm,jx\in Q_{m,j}, and then xQm,jKx\in Q_{m,j}\cap K, so jJmj\in J_{m}. The same argument applied to an arbitrary xKx\in K shows KEmK\subseteq E_{m}, and EmBE_{m}\subseteq B because every cell is contained in BB by claim 1.

Let p=Jmp=|J_{m}| and let g:[p]Jmg:[p]\to J_{m} be a bijection. The sets Qm,g(1),,Qm,g(p)Q_{m,g(1)},\dots,Q_{m,g(p)} are pairwise disjoint members of B(Rn)\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) with union EmE_{m}, so EmB(Rn)E_{m}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) because a σ\sigma-algebra is closed under finite unions, and claim 1 of Basic Properties of a Measure together with part (b) above gives

λn(Em)=k=1pλn(Qm,g(k))=phn=Jm(sm)n,\lambda_{n}(E_{m})=\sum_{k=1}^{p}\lambda_{n}\bigl(Q_{m,g(k)}\bigr)=p\,h^{n}=|J_{m}|\Bigl(\frac{s}{m}\Bigr)^{n},

a real number and in particular finite.

Proof of claim 4. Write Ek=EmkE^{\ast}_{k}=E_{m_{k}} and Jk=JmkJ^{\ast}_{k}=J_{m_{k}}.

(a) Monotonicity. Fix kNk\in\mathbb{N}; then mk+1=2mkm_{k+1}=2m_{k}. Let xEk+1x\in E^{\ast}_{k+1}, say xQmk+1,jx\in Q_{m_{k+1},j'} with jJk+1j'\in J^{\ast}_{k+1}. By claim 2 there is j[mk]nj\in[m_{k}]^{n} with Qmk+1,jQmk,jQ_{m_{k+1},j'}\subseteq Q_{m_{k},j}, and then Qmk+1,jKQmk,jK\varnothing\ne Q_{m_{k+1},j'}\cap K\subseteq Q_{m_{k},j}\cap K, so jJkj\in J^{\ast}_{k} and xEkx\in E^{\ast}_{k}. With KEk+1K\subseteq E^{\ast}_{k+1} from claim 3 this gives KEk+1EkK\subseteq E^{\ast}_{k+1}\subseteq E^{\ast}_{k}.

(b) The mesh indices grow. We have kmkk\le m_{k} for every kNk\in\mathbb{N}, by induction: m1=1m_{1}=1; and if kmkk\le m_{k} then, since 1mk1\le m_{k}, mk+1=2mk=mk+mkmk+1k+1m_{k+1}=2m_{k}=m_{k}+m_{k}\ge m_{k}+1\ge k+1.

(c) The intersection is KK. The inclusion KkEkK\subseteq\bigcap_{k}E^{\ast}_{k} is part (a). Conversely let xkEkx\in\bigcap_{k}E^{\ast}_{k} and suppose xKx\notin K. As KK is compact it is closed in Rn\mathbb{R}^{n} by Compact Subset of Rn\mathbb{R}^n is Closed, so its complement is open and there is a real η>0\eta>0 with BdE(x,η)RnKB_{d_{E}}(x,\eta)\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus K, where BdEB_{d_{E}} is the open ball. By The Archimedean Property of the Real Numbers there is kNk\in\mathbb{N} with σns/η<k\sigma_{n}s/\eta<k, and then σns/η<kmk\sigma_{n}s/\eta<k\le m_{k} by (b), so σns/mk<η\sigma_{n}s/m_{k}<\eta. Since xEkx\in E^{\ast}_{k} there is jJkj\in J^{\ast}_{k} with xQmk,jx\in Q_{m_{k},j}, and there is yQmk,jKy\in Q_{m_{k},j}\cap K. By claim 1, xyσns/mk<η\lVert x-y\rVert\le\sigma_{n}s/m_{k}<\eta, so dE(x,y)<ηd_{E}(x,y)<\eta and yBdE(x,η)Ky\in B_{d_{E}}(x,\eta)\cap K, a contradiction. Hence xKx\in K.

(d) Convergence of the measures. Being compact, KK belongs to B(Rn)\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) and λn(K)<\lambda_{n}(K)<\infty by claim 3 of Balls Have Positive Lebesgue Measure and Bounded Sets Have Finite Lebesgue Measure. Put Dk=E1EkD_{k}=E^{\ast}_{1}\setminus E^{\ast}_{k}. By (a) the sequence (Dk)kN(D_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} is increasing, its members lie in B(Rn)\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n}), and by (c)

kNDk=E1kNEk=E1K.\bigcup_{k\in\mathbb{N}}D_{k}=E^{\ast}_{1}\setminus\bigcap_{k\in\mathbb{N}}E^{\ast}_{k}=E^{\ast}_{1}\setminus K .

By claim 3, λn(E1)<\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{1})<\infty, and EkE1E^{\ast}_{k}\subseteq E^{\ast}_{1}, KE1K\subseteq E^{\ast}_{1}; so claim 3 of Basic Properties of a Measure gives that all the quantities below are real and

λn(Dk)=λn(E1)λn(Ek),λn(E1K)=λn(E1)λn(K).\lambda_{n}(D_{k})=\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{1})-\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{k}),\qquad \lambda_{n}\bigl(E^{\ast}_{1}\setminus K\bigr)=\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{1})-\lambda_{n}(K).

Every λn(Dk)\lambda_{n}(D_{k}) is real and bounded above by λn(E1)\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{1}) by claim 2 of Basic Properties of a Measure, so claim 5 there shows that (λn(Dk))kN(\lambda_{n}(D_{k}))_{k\in\mathbb{N}} converges to λn(E1K)\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{1}\setminus K). Subtracting the two displayed identities,

λn(Dk)λn(E1K)=λn(K)λn(Ek).\lambda_{n}(D_{k})-\lambda_{n}\bigl(E^{\ast}_{1}\setminus K\bigr)=\lambda_{n}(K)-\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{k}).

Let εR\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} with 0<ε0<\varepsilon. By convergence there is kNk\in\mathbb{N} with λn(K)λn(Ek)<ε|\lambda_{n}(K)-\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{k})|<\varepsilon, and in particular λn(Ek)λn(K)+ε\lambda_{n}(E^{\ast}_{k})\le\lambda_{n}(K)+\varepsilon. This completes the proof of claim 4.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…