Mixing
Prove that $sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I)$, when $bigcup_j=1^n I_j supseteq I$.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $I_1, I_2, cdots, I_n$ be a finite collection of intervals on $[0,1]$, whose union contains an interval $I$, then $$sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I),$$ where $mathbbP$ denotes the length of an interval.
I posted a proof of this theorem as a Lemma to a more general theorem, but my arguments seemed to confuse people. I have tried to rewrite it and tidy things up a bit, but it still seems convoluted, and I’ve struggled to excise the sloppy notation. Is there a simpler way to prove this theorem? Also, any advice on how to clean this proof up (and correct it if anything is still wrong) would be greatly appreciated!
Proof:
For any $1leq j leq n$, let $a_j$ be the left end point of $I_j$ and $b_j$ be the right end point of $I_j$. The sets $a_j$ and $b_j$ are finite and thus can be ordered. Let $a_l_i$ and $b_k_i$ be the ordered sets of these end points (ordered from least to greatest).
For the interval $I$ we have
$$bigcup_j=1^n I_j supseteq I.$$
Letting $a$ and $b$ denote the left and right end points of $I$, respectively, without loss of generality we assume
$$a_l_1leq aleq b_l_1, $$
$$a_k_nleq bleq b_k_n. $$
The above simply says that $a$ and $b$ are in the intervals with smallest left end point and largest right end point, respectively (this could of course be the same interval).
Using the ordering of end points, we can pair them up, from smallest to largest:
$$sum_j=1^n(b_j - a_j)= sum_i=1^n(b_j_i - a_j_i)= Big[sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) +(b_j_1 -a_j_n)Big]+(b_j_n -a_j_1) .$$
In the last expression, we have removed the smallest left end point and largest right end point from the sum. Since we assume some part of the interval $I$ is in every $I_n$, the remaining end points of intervals must overlap, which means, for any $i$,
$$b_j_i-1 geq a_j_i.$$
Thus, we can reorder the sum again to show that
$$sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) + (b_j_1-a_j_n)= sum_i=2^n (b_j_i-1- a_j_i) geq0.$$
Returning to our original sum, it follows that
$$sum_j=1^n (b_j - a_j) geq b_k_n - a_l_1 geq b-a,$$
which implies
$$ sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I). quad square$$
probability-theory proof-verification proof-writing alternative-proof
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $I_1, I_2, cdots, I_n$ be a finite collection of intervals on $[0,1]$, whose union contains an interval $I$, then $$sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I),$$ where $mathbbP$ denotes the length of an interval.
I posted a proof of this theorem as a Lemma to a more general theorem, but my arguments seemed to confuse people. I have tried to rewrite it and tidy things up a bit, but it still seems convoluted, and I’ve struggled to excise the sloppy notation. Is there a simpler way to prove this theorem? Also, any advice on how to clean this proof up (and correct it if anything is still wrong) would be greatly appreciated!
Proof:
For any $1leq j leq n$, let $a_j$ be the left end point of $I_j$ and $b_j$ be the right end point of $I_j$. The sets $a_j$ and $b_j$ are finite and thus can be ordered. Let $a_l_i$ and $b_k_i$ be the ordered sets of these end points (ordered from least to greatest).
For the interval $I$ we have
$$bigcup_j=1^n I_j supseteq I.$$
Letting $a$ and $b$ denote the left and right end points of $I$, respectively, without loss of generality we assume
$$a_l_1leq aleq b_l_1, $$
$$a_k_nleq bleq b_k_n. $$
The above simply says that $a$ and $b$ are in the intervals with smallest left end point and largest right end point, respectively (this could of course be the same interval).
Using the ordering of end points, we can pair them up, from smallest to largest:
$$sum_j=1^n(b_j - a_j)= sum_i=1^n(b_j_i - a_j_i)= Big[sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) +(b_j_1 -a_j_n)Big]+(b_j_n -a_j_1) .$$
In the last expression, we have removed the smallest left end point and largest right end point from the sum. Since we assume some part of the interval $I$ is in every $I_n$, the remaining end points of intervals must overlap, which means, for any $i$,
$$b_j_i-1 geq a_j_i.$$
Thus, we can reorder the sum again to show that
$$sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) + (b_j_1-a_j_n)= sum_i=2^n (b_j_i-1- a_j_i) geq0.$$
Returning to our original sum, it follows that
$$sum_j=1^n (b_j - a_j) geq b_k_n - a_l_1 geq b-a,$$
which implies
$$ sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I). quad square$$
probability-theory proof-verification proof-writing alternative-proof
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $I_1, I_2, cdots, I_n$ be a finite collection of intervals on $[0,1]$, whose union contains an interval $I$, then $$sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I),$$ where $mathbbP$ denotes the length of an interval.
I posted a proof of this theorem as a Lemma to a more general theorem, but my arguments seemed to confuse people. I have tried to rewrite it and tidy things up a bit, but it still seems convoluted, and I’ve struggled to excise the sloppy notation. Is there a simpler way to prove this theorem? Also, any advice on how to clean this proof up (and correct it if anything is still wrong) would be greatly appreciated!
Proof:
For any $1leq j leq n$, let $a_j$ be the left end point of $I_j$ and $b_j$ be the right end point of $I_j$. The sets $a_j$ and $b_j$ are finite and thus can be ordered. Let $a_l_i$ and $b_k_i$ be the ordered sets of these end points (ordered from least to greatest).
For the interval $I$ we have
$$bigcup_j=1^n I_j supseteq I.$$
Letting $a$ and $b$ denote the left and right end points of $I$, respectively, without loss of generality we assume
$$a_l_1leq aleq b_l_1, $$
$$a_k_nleq bleq b_k_n. $$
The above simply says that $a$ and $b$ are in the intervals with smallest left end point and largest right end point, respectively (this could of course be the same interval).
Using the ordering of end points, we can pair them up, from smallest to largest:
$$sum_j=1^n(b_j - a_j)= sum_i=1^n(b_j_i - a_j_i)= Big[sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) +(b_j_1 -a_j_n)Big]+(b_j_n -a_j_1) .$$
In the last expression, we have removed the smallest left end point and largest right end point from the sum. Since we assume some part of the interval $I$ is in every $I_n$, the remaining end points of intervals must overlap, which means, for any $i$,
$$b_j_i-1 geq a_j_i.$$
Thus, we can reorder the sum again to show that
$$sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) + (b_j_1-a_j_n)= sum_i=2^n (b_j_i-1- a_j_i) geq0.$$
Returning to our original sum, it follows that
$$sum_j=1^n (b_j - a_j) geq b_k_n - a_l_1 geq b-a,$$
which implies
$$ sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I). quad square$$
probability-theory proof-verification proof-writing alternative-proof
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
Let $I_1, I_2, cdots, I_n$ be a finite collection of intervals on $[0,1]$, whose union contains an interval $I$, then $$sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I),$$ where $mathbbP$ denotes the length of an interval.
I posted a proof of this theorem as a Lemma to a more general theorem, but my arguments seemed to confuse people. I have tried to rewrite it and tidy things up a bit, but it still seems convoluted, and I’ve struggled to excise the sloppy notation. Is there a simpler way to prove this theorem? Also, any advice on how to clean this proof up (and correct it if anything is still wrong) would be greatly appreciated!
Proof:
For any $1leq j leq n$, let $a_j$ be the left end point of $I_j$ and $b_j$ be the right end point of $I_j$. The sets $a_j$ and $b_j$ are finite and thus can be ordered. Let $a_l_i$ and $b_k_i$ be the ordered sets of these end points (ordered from least to greatest).
For the interval $I$ we have
$$bigcup_j=1^n I_j supseteq I.$$
Letting $a$ and $b$ denote the left and right end points of $I$, respectively, without loss of generality we assume
$$a_l_1leq aleq b_l_1, $$
$$a_k_nleq bleq b_k_n. $$
The above simply says that $a$ and $b$ are in the intervals with smallest left end point and largest right end point, respectively (this could of course be the same interval).
Using the ordering of end points, we can pair them up, from smallest to largest:
$$sum_j=1^n(b_j - a_j)= sum_i=1^n(b_j_i - a_j_i)= Big[sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) +(b_j_1 -a_j_n)Big]+(b_j_n -a_j_1) .$$
In the last expression, we have removed the smallest left end point and largest right end point from the sum. Since we assume some part of the interval $I$ is in every $I_n$, the remaining end points of intervals must overlap, which means, for any $i$,
$$b_j_i-1 geq a_j_i.$$
Thus, we can reorder the sum again to show that
$$sum_i =2^n-1(b_j_i - a_j_i) + (b_j_1-a_j_n)= sum_i=2^n (b_j_i-1- a_j_i) geq0.$$
Returning to our original sum, it follows that
$$sum_j=1^n (b_j - a_j) geq b_k_n - a_l_1 geq b-a,$$
which implies
$$ sum_j=1^n mathbbP(I_j) geq mathbbP(I). quad square$$
probability-theory proof-verification proof-writing alternative-proof
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
asked Jul 17 at 12:07
Moed Pol Bollo
19518
19518
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
For any finite collection of measurable sets $I,I_1, I_2,...I_n$ of the measure space $(Omega, mathscr A, P)$
$$sum_j=1^n P(I_j)geq Pleft(bigcup_j=1^n I_jright)geq P(I)
$$
if $bigcup_j=1^n I_jsupseteq I.$
EDIT
I think the following argumentation will help.
Finite unions of intervals behave like disjoint unions of intervals. This can be proven by mathematical induction. For two intervals, the statement is trivial. (The two intervals are either disjoint, containing, or overlaping...)
If the statement is true for $n$ intervals then...
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
For any finite collection of measurable sets $I,I_1, I_2,...I_n$ of the measure space $(Omega, mathscr A, P)$
$$sum_j=1^n P(I_j)geq Pleft(bigcup_j=1^n I_jright)geq P(I)
$$
if $bigcup_j=1^n I_jsupseteq I.$
EDIT
I think the following argumentation will help.
Finite unions of intervals behave like disjoint unions of intervals. This can be proven by mathematical induction. For two intervals, the statement is trivial. (The two intervals are either disjoint, containing, or overlaping...)
If the statement is true for $n$ intervals then...
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For any finite collection of measurable sets $I,I_1, I_2,...I_n$ of the measure space $(Omega, mathscr A, P)$
$$sum_j=1^n P(I_j)geq Pleft(bigcup_j=1^n I_jright)geq P(I)
$$
if $bigcup_j=1^n I_jsupseteq I.$
EDIT
I think the following argumentation will help.
Finite unions of intervals behave like disjoint unions of intervals. This can be proven by mathematical induction. For two intervals, the statement is trivial. (The two intervals are either disjoint, containing, or overlaping...)
If the statement is true for $n$ intervals then...
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
For any finite collection of measurable sets $I,I_1, I_2,...I_n$ of the measure space $(Omega, mathscr A, P)$
$$sum_j=1^n P(I_j)geq Pleft(bigcup_j=1^n I_jright)geq P(I)
$$
if $bigcup_j=1^n I_jsupseteq I.$
EDIT
I think the following argumentation will help.
Finite unions of intervals behave like disjoint unions of intervals. This can be proven by mathematical induction. For two intervals, the statement is trivial. (The two intervals are either disjoint, containing, or overlaping...)
If the statement is true for $n$ intervals then...
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
For any finite collection of measurable sets $I,I_1, I_2,...I_n$ of the measure space $(Omega, mathscr A, P)$
$$sum_j=1^n P(I_j)geq Pleft(bigcup_j=1^n I_jright)geq P(I)
$$
if $bigcup_j=1^n I_jsupseteq I.$
EDIT
I think the following argumentation will help.
Finite unions of intervals behave like disjoint unions of intervals. This can be proven by mathematical induction. For two intervals, the statement is trivial. (The two intervals are either disjoint, containing, or overlaping...)
If the statement is true for $n$ intervals then...
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
edited Jul 20 at 9:37
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
answered Jul 18 at 12:08
zoli
16.3k41643
16.3k41643
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
add a comment |Â
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
This assumes that $mathbbP$ is a measure—which is what I’m trying to prove.
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 18 at 12:45
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
@MoedPolBollo: The class of intervals of $[0,1]$ and the interval length behave like a measure on the class of finite unions of the intervals. Every finite union of intervals can be considered as a union of disjoint intervals...
– zoli
Jul 19 at 7:42
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
Yes, but this Lemma is a part of the proof that Lebesgue measure satisfies subaditivity; so what I’m trying to verify is essentially the statement “intervals and interval lengths behave like a measure.â€Â
– Moed Pol Bollo
Jul 19 at 9:10
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
@MoedPolBollo : Now, I understand the source of misunderstanding. Just like I, nobody understood why you wanted to prove the statement at stake. I edited my answer.
– zoli
Jul 20 at 9:37
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2854433%2fprove-that-sum-j-1n-mathbbpi-j-geq-mathbbpi-when-bigcup-j%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password