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 am trying to understand measure construction procedures on infinite-dimensional spaces. Why is it not possible in general to construct Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}$ or $\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{R}$?

share|cite|improve this question
3… – Samuel Nov 22 '12 at 3:41
Thanks. This is a very nice link! – Learner Nov 22 '12 at 3:44
@Samuel: Note that the proof in the link needs modification, since it is written for Banach spaces, but the idea is the same: any open set contains infinitely many translates of a smaller open set. – Nate Eldredge Nov 22 '12 at 3:55
@NateEldredge How would you modify this proof if we drop the Banach assumption? – T. Eskin Nov 22 '12 at 7:56
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I will prove it for $\mathbb R^{\mathbb N}$. (A proof for all Banach spaces is given here.)

Consider the cube $(-1,1]^{\mathbb N}$. It can be partitioned into infinitely many translated copies of the cube $(0,1]^{\mathbb N}$, so if we want them all to have the same volume, and the cube $(-1,1]^{\mathbb N}$ to have finite volume, then the volume of each must be $0$. Now, we can cover the entire space $\mathbb R^{\mathbb N}$ with countably many copies of the cube $(0,1]^{\mathbb N}$, so the entire space $\mathbb R^{\mathbb N}$ must have measure $0$, and thus all subsets must also have measure $0$. Thus the only finite translation-invariant complete measure on $\mathbb R^{\mathbb N}$ is the trivial measure $0$.

share|cite|improve this answer

First constructions of "Lebesgue measure" on $\mathbb{R}^{\infty}$ can be found in papers:

[1] Baker R., "Lebesgue measure" on $\mathbb{R}^{\infty}$, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 113, no. 4, 1991, pp.1023--1029.

[2] Baker R., "Lebesgue measure" on $\mathbb{R}^{ \infty}$. II. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 132, no. 9, 2003, pp. 2577--2591.

Some generalizations of Baker constructions can be found in the following articles:

[3] G. Pantsulaia, On ordinary and Standard Lebesgue Measures on $\mathbb R^{\infty}$, Bull. Polish Acad. Sci., 73(3) (2009), 209-222.

[4] G. Pantsulaia, On a standard product of an arbitrary family of finite Borel measures with domain in Polish spaces, Theory Stoch. Process, vol. 16(32), 2010, no 1, p.84-93.

[5] G. Pantsulaia, On ordinary and standard products of infinite family of $\sigma$-finite measures and some of their applications, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.), 27 (2011), no. 3, 477--496.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the references! – Learner Dec 29 '12 at 6:21

I am not quite sure what you mean. But the construction of Lebesgue measure on $X$ I learnt is by using the Riesz representation theorem to identify Lebesgue measure as one continuous linear functional over $C(X)$. But this requires the $X$ to be locally compact, and if $X$ is a vector space, the only locally compact ones are $\mathbb{R}^n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The following old article of Oxtoby [Oxtoby J.C., Invariant measures in groups which are not locally compact, Trans. AMS., 60 (1946), 215--237] contains general constructions of left-invariant quasi-finite Borel measures on Polish groups that are not locally compact. This article contains answers to all questions stated above. – Gogi Pantsulaia Dec 30 '12 at 6:30

Feynman has done something like this when he defines path integral. It is infinite dimensional measure.

$\int_{\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}}d^{\infty}x \mathcal{Dx}e^{i\mathcal{S}[x]}$

Is such beautiful formula but many mathematician have problem justifying? Answer: Is not infinite dimensional measure.

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.