Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

One step in the proof of Tonelli-Fubini Theorem

$Q$ is a probability measure on $(F,\mathcal{F})$.

Suppose $C\in\mathcal{E}\bigotimes\mathcal{F}$ and $C(x)=\{y:(x,y)\in C\}$

Let $\mathcal{H}=\left\{ C\in\mathcal{E}\bigotimes\mathcal{F}:\: x\rightarrow Q[C(x)]\textrm{ is }\mathcal{E}\textrm{-measurable}\right\} $ .

Show that $\mathcal{H}$ is closed under increasing limit and differences.

I can prove it is closed under the increasing limit because $C_{n}(x)\uparrow C(x)\Rightarrow Q[C_{n}(x)]\uparrow Q[C(x)]$.

However, I don't know how to show the difference because

(1) The difference of two measurable functions might not be measurable.

(2) $Q[C_{1}(x)\backslash C_{2}(x)]\neq Q[C_{1}(x)]-Q[C_{2}(x)]$ .

Thank you!

share|improve this question
5  
The difference of two measurable functions might not be measurable... Really? –  Did Mar 4 '12 at 9:37
2  
By closed under differences, does the author mean that if $A\subset B$ and $A,B\in\mathcal H$ then $B\setminus A\in\mathcal H$? –  Davide Giraudo Mar 4 '12 at 10:47
    
@Didier Piau. Oh I take it back. Since their sum is measurable, their difference should be measurable as well. –  user16859 Mar 4 '12 at 16:36
    
@Davide Giraudo Oh, I just checked the textbook. That is what they meant! Thanks. –  user16859 Mar 4 '12 at 16:40

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Let $S$ be a set and $\mathcal F\subset 2^S$. $\mathcal F$ is closed by differences means that if $A$ and $B$ are in $\mathcal F$ and $A\subset B$ then $B\setminus A\in\mathcal F$.

We apply this to $S=E\times F$ and $\mathcal F=\mathcal H$. We take $C_1, C_2\in\mathcal H$ such that $C_1\subset C_2$. Then $Q(C_2(x)\setminus C_1(x))=Q(C_2(x))-Q(C_1(x))$. Since the maps $x\mapsto Q(C_2(x))$ and $x\mapsto -Q(C_1(x))$ are $\mathcal E$-measurable, so is their sum, which is $x\mapsto Q(C_2(x)\setminus C_1(x))$.

share|improve this answer
    
So if $C$ is measurable, the slice $C(x)$ is measurable? –  Matt N. Mar 4 '12 at 21:44
    
Yes, let $\mathcal A:=\bigcap_{x\in E}\{C\subset E \times F, C(x)\in \mathcal F\}$. Then $\mathcal A$ is a $\sigma$-algebra which contains all the sets of the form $E'\times F'$ with $E'\in\mathcal E'$ and $F'\in\mathcal F'$ –  Davide Giraudo Mar 4 '12 at 21:51
    
Thank you. But I still don't fully understand: We defined $\mathcal{H}$ in terms of the functions $f_C : x \mapsto Q[{C(x)}]$, namely we take it to be all the sets $C$ that make $f_C$ measurable. Since $Q$ is a probability measure, $f_C$ is a function into $[0,1]$. Now for some reason that I don't yet see, $f_C^{-1}$ maps (Lebesgue?) measurable sets in $[0,1]$ to sets in $\mathcal{E}$. Is $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{H}$? –  Matt N. Mar 5 '12 at 11:49

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.