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

I have the impression that modern texts deal almost excusively with measures on $\sigma$-algebras, while older texts, such as the one of Halmos, deal mainly with measures defined on $\sigma$-rings. I'm curious what motivated this change and in what context are $\sigma$-rings more natural domains for measures?

share|cite|improve this question
This proposed innovation by Halmos never caught on. – GEdgar Jun 25 '12 at 14:10
According to J.-P. Pier, Histoire de l'intégration, $\sigma$-rings were introduced by Fréchet. They appear on p. 250 of Sur l'intégrale d'une fonctionnelle étendue à un ensemble abstrait (1915) under the name familles additives d'ensembles. On the other hand, the book by Saks (1937) works with $\sigma$-algebras "additive classes of sets". I can't check in Carathéodory's work at the moment. – t.b. Jun 25 '12 at 16:04
I'm pretty sure, you now know something to answer this question yourself. Also, on page 10 of Dubins and Savage gambling book, they mention several paper by De Finetti that compare $\sigma$-additive and finitely-additive approach. – Ilya Jul 16 '13 at 13:11
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Being unfamiliar with the older text, I can only speculate. One explanation is that one prefers to work with sets of $\sigma$-finite measure: those that can be written as a countable union of sets of finite measure. For example, sets of $\sigma$-finite length ($1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure) in the plane form a $\sigma$-ring, not a $\sigma$-algebra. It is rather fruitless to think about 1-dimensional measure of the complement of a line, so removing such sets from consideration seems reasonable.

share|cite|improve this answer
And we should not forget that outer measures are more general than measures. But most textbooks focus on measures. Probably it is just a matter of convenience: we choose the setting which is most frequent in special cases. – Siminore Jun 25 '12 at 13:46

From Wikipedia:

σ-rings can be used instead of σ-fields in the development of measure and integration theory, if one does not wish to require that the universal set be measurable. Every σ-field is also a σ-ring, but a σ-ring need not be a σ-field.

I guess that interesting measure spaces are always measurable, and that's why modern books tend to use $\sigma$-algebras rather than $\sigma$-rings. For example, on $\sigma$-rings it may be impossible to integrate over the whole space, and this is usually a useless restriction.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.