Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\mu(\cdot)$ be a probability measure on $W \subseteq \mathbb{R}^p$, so that $\int_W \mu(dw) = 1$.

Consider a function $f: X \times Y \times W \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$, with $X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ compact, $Y \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ compact, such that: $\forall w$ $f(\cdot,\cdot,w)$ is continuous, $\forall (x,y)$ $f(x,y,\cdot)$ is measurable.

Assume that for any compact $\underline{W} \subset W$ we have

$$ \max_{y \in Y} \int_{\underline{W}} f(x,y,w) \mu(dw) \leq F(x) $$

On the whole $W$, we assume that

$$ \max_{y \in Y} \int_W \sup_{x \in X} f(x,y,w) \mu(dw) < \infty $$

This implies that for any $y$ the family $\{w \mapsto f(x,y,w)\}_{x \in X}$ is Uniformly Integrable.

Are the assumptions sufficient to say the following?

$$ \max_{y \in Y} \int_W f(x,y,w) \mu(dw) \leq F(x) $$

share|cite|improve this question
I don't think so. Let $W = \mathbb{R}$. Consider $f(x,n,w) = n$ if $w \in [n,n+1]$, $0$ otherwise. When you integrate over $W$ you get $\infty$. – Adam May 15 '12 at 3:13
I completely misread the question, it seems! o.O – Sam May 15 '12 at 6:22
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Suppose not. Then there are $x_0 \in X$, $y_0 \in Y$ such that $\int_W f(x_0,y_0,w) \mu(dw) > F(x_0)$. And from the inner regularity of the measure $f(x_0,y_0,w) \mu(dw)$ there is compact $K \subset W$ such that $\int_K f(x_0,y_0,w) \mu(dw) > F(x_0)$.
But $\int_K f(x_0,y_0,w)\mu(dw) \le \max_{y \in Y} \int_K f(x_0,y,w)\mu(dw) \le F(x_0)$, contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
I'm wondering on what happens if $f(x,y,w) := g(y,w) \ \forall x$ and $F(x) = F \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \ \forall x$. In this case, $\sup_x f(x,y,w) = g(y,w)$. Therefore we only have $\max_{y \in Y} \int_{\underline{W}} g(x,w) \mu(dw) \leq F$. So why should we have $\max_{y \in Y} \int_W g(y,w) \mu(dw) \leq F$? – Adam May 15 '12 at 4:46
I meant "we only have $\max_{y \in Y}\int_{\underline{W}} g(y,w) \mu(dw) \leq F$"... Can you be more formal when you say "from the inner regularity"? – Adam May 15 '12 at 5:00
$\rho(dw) = f(x_0, y_0, w) \mu(dw)$ is a positive measure, defined by $\rho(A) = \int_A f(x_0,y_0,w)\mu(dw)$. According to your assumptions, $\rho(K) \le F(x_0) < \infty$ for every compact set $K$. There is a theorem (see e.g. Rudin, "Real and Complex Analysis", Theorem 2.18) that any positive Borel measure on a locally compact Hausdorff space in which every open set is $\sigma$-compact, such that every compact set has finite measure, is regular. – Robert Israel May 15 '12 at 7:47
This means that for every Borel set $E$, $$\rho(E) = \inf \{\rho(V): E \subseteq V,\ V \text{ open}\} = \sup \{\rho(K): K \subseteq E,\ K \text{ compact}\}$$ – Robert Israel May 15 '12 at 7:49
The part with the $V$ open is outer regularity, the part with the $K$ compact is inner regularity. – Robert Israel May 15 '12 at 7:51

Your Answer


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.