A set of positive measure contains a product set of positive measure?
$begingroup$
The following question arose in my research on variations on Bell's theorem. I have tried to solve it on my own, but my weak background in measure theory apparently doesn't allow me to do so within a reasonable amount of time.
This is my first post on any SE site. Since the question is probably not research-level, I'm posting it here instead of on MO.
Let $(Omega_1,mathcal{F}_1,P_1)$ and $(Omega_2,mathcal{F}_2,P_2)$ be probability spaces. The product $Omega_1timesOmega_2$ comes equipped with the standard product $sigma$-algebra and product measure.
If $Asubseteq Omega_1timesOmega_2$ is of positive measure, do there exist $B_1subseteqOmega_1$ and $B_2subseteqOmega_2$ of positive measure such that $B_1times B_2subseteq A$?
If this turns out to be false, then what about the same question with $B_1times B_2subseteq_{a.s.} A$ instead of exact containment?
Edit: I have accepted @leslie's answer as it resolves the original problem. I still hope for a positive answer to the revised question, where I allow $A$ to be modified by a set of measure zero. Can anyone say anything about this?
measure-theory probability-theory
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The following question arose in my research on variations on Bell's theorem. I have tried to solve it on my own, but my weak background in measure theory apparently doesn't allow me to do so within a reasonable amount of time.
This is my first post on any SE site. Since the question is probably not research-level, I'm posting it here instead of on MO.
Let $(Omega_1,mathcal{F}_1,P_1)$ and $(Omega_2,mathcal{F}_2,P_2)$ be probability spaces. The product $Omega_1timesOmega_2$ comes equipped with the standard product $sigma$-algebra and product measure.
If $Asubseteq Omega_1timesOmega_2$ is of positive measure, do there exist $B_1subseteqOmega_1$ and $B_2subseteqOmega_2$ of positive measure such that $B_1times B_2subseteq A$?
If this turns out to be false, then what about the same question with $B_1times B_2subseteq_{a.s.} A$ instead of exact containment?
Edit: I have accepted @leslie's answer as it resolves the original problem. I still hope for a positive answer to the revised question, where I allow $A$ to be modified by a set of measure zero. Can anyone say anything about this?
measure-theory probability-theory
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sorry, the first sentence was supposed to contain a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I've added the link.
$endgroup$
– Zev Chonoles
May 26 '12 at 8:29
$begingroup$
Thanks! By now, I've also found the edit button ;)
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:51
1
$begingroup$
Here is a related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/42748/…
$endgroup$
– Jonas Meyer
May 28 '12 at 3:19
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas: good find, thanks! I haven't read the references you gave there in detail, but now I fear that the answer to my revised question will also be negative. Luckily, what I can prove using the approximation lemma is that for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a rectangle $B_1times B_2$ of positive measure for which at most an $varepsilon$th part lies outside the original set $A$. This turns out to be enough for my application.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 28 '12 at 10:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The following question arose in my research on variations on Bell's theorem. I have tried to solve it on my own, but my weak background in measure theory apparently doesn't allow me to do so within a reasonable amount of time.
This is my first post on any SE site. Since the question is probably not research-level, I'm posting it here instead of on MO.
Let $(Omega_1,mathcal{F}_1,P_1)$ and $(Omega_2,mathcal{F}_2,P_2)$ be probability spaces. The product $Omega_1timesOmega_2$ comes equipped with the standard product $sigma$-algebra and product measure.
If $Asubseteq Omega_1timesOmega_2$ is of positive measure, do there exist $B_1subseteqOmega_1$ and $B_2subseteqOmega_2$ of positive measure such that $B_1times B_2subseteq A$?
If this turns out to be false, then what about the same question with $B_1times B_2subseteq_{a.s.} A$ instead of exact containment?
Edit: I have accepted @leslie's answer as it resolves the original problem. I still hope for a positive answer to the revised question, where I allow $A$ to be modified by a set of measure zero. Can anyone say anything about this?
measure-theory probability-theory
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
$endgroup$
The following question arose in my research on variations on Bell's theorem. I have tried to solve it on my own, but my weak background in measure theory apparently doesn't allow me to do so within a reasonable amount of time.
This is my first post on any SE site. Since the question is probably not research-level, I'm posting it here instead of on MO.
Let $(Omega_1,mathcal{F}_1,P_1)$ and $(Omega_2,mathcal{F}_2,P_2)$ be probability spaces. The product $Omega_1timesOmega_2$ comes equipped with the standard product $sigma$-algebra and product measure.
If $Asubseteq Omega_1timesOmega_2$ is of positive measure, do there exist $B_1subseteqOmega_1$ and $B_2subseteqOmega_2$ of positive measure such that $B_1times B_2subseteq A$?
If this turns out to be false, then what about the same question with $B_1times B_2subseteq_{a.s.} A$ instead of exact containment?
Edit: I have accepted @leslie's answer as it resolves the original problem. I still hope for a positive answer to the revised question, where I allow $A$ to be modified by a set of measure zero. Can anyone say anything about this?
measure-theory probability-theory
measure-theory probability-theory
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
edited May 26 '12 at 11:10
Saibot
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
asked May 26 '12 at 8:26
SaibotSaibot
1185
1185
$begingroup$
Sorry, the first sentence was supposed to contain a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I've added the link.
$endgroup$
– Zev Chonoles
May 26 '12 at 8:29
$begingroup$
Thanks! By now, I've also found the edit button ;)
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:51
1
$begingroup$
Here is a related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/42748/…
$endgroup$
– Jonas Meyer
May 28 '12 at 3:19
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas: good find, thanks! I haven't read the references you gave there in detail, but now I fear that the answer to my revised question will also be negative. Luckily, what I can prove using the approximation lemma is that for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a rectangle $B_1times B_2$ of positive measure for which at most an $varepsilon$th part lies outside the original set $A$. This turns out to be enough for my application.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 28 '12 at 10:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sorry, the first sentence was supposed to contain a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I've added the link.
$endgroup$
– Zev Chonoles
May 26 '12 at 8:29
$begingroup$
Thanks! By now, I've also found the edit button ;)
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:51
1
$begingroup$
Here is a related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/42748/…
$endgroup$
– Jonas Meyer
May 28 '12 at 3:19
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas: good find, thanks! I haven't read the references you gave there in detail, but now I fear that the answer to my revised question will also be negative. Luckily, what I can prove using the approximation lemma is that for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a rectangle $B_1times B_2$ of positive measure for which at most an $varepsilon$th part lies outside the original set $A$. This turns out to be enough for my application.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 28 '12 at 10:09
$begingroup$
Sorry, the first sentence was supposed to contain a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:27
$begingroup$
Sorry, the first sentence was supposed to contain a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I've added the link.
$endgroup$
– Zev Chonoles
May 26 '12 at 8:29
$begingroup$
I've added the link.
$endgroup$
– Zev Chonoles
May 26 '12 at 8:29
$begingroup$
Thanks! By now, I've also found the edit button ;)
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:51
$begingroup$
Thanks! By now, I've also found the edit button ;)
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:51
1
1
$begingroup$
Here is a related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/42748/…
$endgroup$
– Jonas Meyer
May 28 '12 at 3:19
$begingroup$
Here is a related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/42748/…
$endgroup$
– Jonas Meyer
May 28 '12 at 3:19
1
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas: good find, thanks! I haven't read the references you gave there in detail, but now I fear that the answer to my revised question will also be negative. Luckily, what I can prove using the approximation lemma is that for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a rectangle $B_1times B_2$ of positive measure for which at most an $varepsilon$th part lies outside the original set $A$. This turns out to be enough for my application.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 28 '12 at 10:09
$begingroup$
@Jonas: good find, thanks! I haven't read the references you gave there in detail, but now I fear that the answer to my revised question will also be negative. Luckily, what I can prove using the approximation lemma is that for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a rectangle $B_1times B_2$ of positive measure for which at most an $varepsilon$th part lies outside the original set $A$. This turns out to be enough for my application.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 28 '12 at 10:09
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One counterexample is the subset of $[0,1] times [0,1]$ (with the usual Lebesgue $sigma$-algebras on both copies of $[0,1]$) given by
$$
E = {(x,y) in [0,1] times [0,1]: y - x not in mathbb{Q}}.
$$
It turns out that $E$ has planar measure $1$, but $E$ does not contain any cylinder set of the form $A times B$ with $A,B$ Lebesgue measurable sets of positive measure. One way to see this is to appeal to the nontrivial but better known fact that if $A$ and $B$ are Lebesgue measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ with positive measure, the difference set $A - B = {a - b: a in A, b in B}$ must contain a nontrivial open interval (so, in particular, rational numbers). The special case of this assertion when the sets $A$ and $B$ are the same is very well known and apparently originally due to Steinhaus.
I recalled this example from Falconer's The Geometry of Fractal Sets, where it is Exercise 5.4 (and the generalization of Steinhaus's observation is Exercise 1.7).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
2
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
1
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149968%2fa-set-of-positive-measure-contains-a-product-set-of-positive-measure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One counterexample is the subset of $[0,1] times [0,1]$ (with the usual Lebesgue $sigma$-algebras on both copies of $[0,1]$) given by
$$
E = {(x,y) in [0,1] times [0,1]: y - x not in mathbb{Q}}.
$$
It turns out that $E$ has planar measure $1$, but $E$ does not contain any cylinder set of the form $A times B$ with $A,B$ Lebesgue measurable sets of positive measure. One way to see this is to appeal to the nontrivial but better known fact that if $A$ and $B$ are Lebesgue measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ with positive measure, the difference set $A - B = {a - b: a in A, b in B}$ must contain a nontrivial open interval (so, in particular, rational numbers). The special case of this assertion when the sets $A$ and $B$ are the same is very well known and apparently originally due to Steinhaus.
I recalled this example from Falconer's The Geometry of Fractal Sets, where it is Exercise 5.4 (and the generalization of Steinhaus's observation is Exercise 1.7).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
2
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
1
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One counterexample is the subset of $[0,1] times [0,1]$ (with the usual Lebesgue $sigma$-algebras on both copies of $[0,1]$) given by
$$
E = {(x,y) in [0,1] times [0,1]: y - x not in mathbb{Q}}.
$$
It turns out that $E$ has planar measure $1$, but $E$ does not contain any cylinder set of the form $A times B$ with $A,B$ Lebesgue measurable sets of positive measure. One way to see this is to appeal to the nontrivial but better known fact that if $A$ and $B$ are Lebesgue measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ with positive measure, the difference set $A - B = {a - b: a in A, b in B}$ must contain a nontrivial open interval (so, in particular, rational numbers). The special case of this assertion when the sets $A$ and $B$ are the same is very well known and apparently originally due to Steinhaus.
I recalled this example from Falconer's The Geometry of Fractal Sets, where it is Exercise 5.4 (and the generalization of Steinhaus's observation is Exercise 1.7).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
2
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
1
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One counterexample is the subset of $[0,1] times [0,1]$ (with the usual Lebesgue $sigma$-algebras on both copies of $[0,1]$) given by
$$
E = {(x,y) in [0,1] times [0,1]: y - x not in mathbb{Q}}.
$$
It turns out that $E$ has planar measure $1$, but $E$ does not contain any cylinder set of the form $A times B$ with $A,B$ Lebesgue measurable sets of positive measure. One way to see this is to appeal to the nontrivial but better known fact that if $A$ and $B$ are Lebesgue measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ with positive measure, the difference set $A - B = {a - b: a in A, b in B}$ must contain a nontrivial open interval (so, in particular, rational numbers). The special case of this assertion when the sets $A$ and $B$ are the same is very well known and apparently originally due to Steinhaus.
I recalled this example from Falconer's The Geometry of Fractal Sets, where it is Exercise 5.4 (and the generalization of Steinhaus's observation is Exercise 1.7).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
$endgroup$
One counterexample is the subset of $[0,1] times [0,1]$ (with the usual Lebesgue $sigma$-algebras on both copies of $[0,1]$) given by
$$
E = {(x,y) in [0,1] times [0,1]: y - x not in mathbb{Q}}.
$$
It turns out that $E$ has planar measure $1$, but $E$ does not contain any cylinder set of the form $A times B$ with $A,B$ Lebesgue measurable sets of positive measure. One way to see this is to appeal to the nontrivial but better known fact that if $A$ and $B$ are Lebesgue measurable subsets of $mathbb{R}$ with positive measure, the difference set $A - B = {a - b: a in A, b in B}$ must contain a nontrivial open interval (so, in particular, rational numbers). The special case of this assertion when the sets $A$ and $B$ are the same is very well known and apparently originally due to Steinhaus.
I recalled this example from Falconer's The Geometry of Fractal Sets, where it is Exercise 5.4 (and the generalization of Steinhaus's observation is Exercise 1.7).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21
Community♦
1
1
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
answered May 26 '12 at 8:59
leslie townesleslie townes
4,99012330
4,99012330
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
2
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
1
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
2
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
1
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
$begingroup$
Very cool! Yes, I've heard of Steinhaus' theorem before. Can you say anything about the case in which I would allow an enlargement of the original set by a set of measure zero? Then your counterexample fails, and I hope for the revised statement to be correct.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 9:08
2
2
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
$begingroup$
How can you show that $E$ is measurable and has measure $1$?
$endgroup$
– Michael Greinecker♦
May 26 '12 at 11:29
1
1
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
The complement of $E$ is a countable disjoint union of lines, and therefore has measure $0$.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 13:04
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
$begingroup$
@Saibot I can't think of any counterexample for the more general problem; it seems genuinely "harder". My guess is that it would not be rejected from MO, and might be answered more quickly there. (For whatever reason, math.SE and MO seem to have increasingly disjoint user bases...)
$endgroup$
– leslie townes
May 26 '12 at 22:56
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149968%2fa-set-of-positive-measure-contains-a-product-set-of-positive-measure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Sorry, the first sentence was supposed to contain a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I've added the link.
$endgroup$
– Zev Chonoles
May 26 '12 at 8:29
$begingroup$
Thanks! By now, I've also found the edit button ;)
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 26 '12 at 8:51
1
$begingroup$
Here is a related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/42748/…
$endgroup$
– Jonas Meyer
May 28 '12 at 3:19
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas: good find, thanks! I haven't read the references you gave there in detail, but now I fear that the answer to my revised question will also be negative. Luckily, what I can prove using the approximation lemma is that for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a rectangle $B_1times B_2$ of positive measure for which at most an $varepsilon$th part lies outside the original set $A$. This turns out to be enough for my application.
$endgroup$
– Saibot
May 28 '12 at 10:09