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.

Rudin RCA p.27

Let $\mu$ be a measure.

Define $f\sim g$ iff $\mu(\{x|f(x)≠g(x)\})=0$ ($f,g$ are measurable functions from $X$ to a topological space $Y$.

How come this relation $\sim$ is transitive?

Let'a assume $f\sim g$ and $g\sim h$.

By assumtion, $\{x|f(x)≠g(x)\}$ and $\{x|g(x)≠h(x)\}$ are measurable sets.

However, why this gurantees that $\{x|f(x)≠h(x)\}$ is measurable? If this is not measurable, then $\mu(\{x|f(x)≠h(x)\})$ is not defined, hence $f$ is not equivalent with $h$.

share|improve this question
    
Are $f,g,h$ $\mathbb{R}$ valued, with $\mathbb{R}$ given Lebesgue measure? –  uncookedfalcon Jan 13 '13 at 11:43
    
@uncookedfalcon No. $f,g,h$ be any maps to a topological space $Y$. –  Katlus Jan 13 '13 at 11:50
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If you assume $f, h$ are measurable functions (which is an acceptable assumption) then $\{x;f(x)\neq h(x)\}$ is a measurable set and we have $\{x;f(x)\neq h(x)\}\subseteq \{x;f(x)\neq g(x)\}\cup \{x;g(x)\neq h(x)\}$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Besides if the measure is complete then such sets are always measurable. –  Vahid Shirbisheh Jan 13 '13 at 11:47
    
do you mean "$\mu$ is complete" is essential? –  Katlus Jan 13 '13 at 12:06
1  
Yes because every subset of a set with measure zero is a measurable set in a complete measure by definition. –  Vahid Shirbisheh Jan 13 '13 at 12:08
    
So the relation in my post fails to be an equivalence relation for an arbitrary measure.. Thank you –  Katlus Jan 13 '13 at 12:12
    
In measure theory we usually consider measurable functions. In that case, as I said in the above the relation is an equivalence relation again, because $\{x; f(x)\neq h(x)\}=(f-h)^{-1} (\mathbb{R}-0)$. –  Vahid Shirbisheh Jan 13 '13 at 12:16
show 1 more comment

Since you're saying $f\sim g$ and $g\sim h$ it is implicitly given that $f,g,h$ are measurable. To show that $\mu(\{x\mid f(x)\neq h(x)\})=0$ show and use that $$ \{x\mid f(x)=g(x)\}\cap\{x\mid g(x)=h(x)\}\subseteq\{x\mid f(x)=h(x)\}. $$

share|improve this answer
    
I showed that equality, but still don't understand why $\{x|f(x)=h(x)\}$ is measurable. Let $y\in Y$ (See my edited post). If it could be shown that $\{y\}$ is a borel set, then the proof is done. If $Y$ is any topological space how come $\{y\}$ is a borel set ? –  Katlus Jan 13 '13 at 12:01
add comment

Note that: $$\forall x\in X[f(x)\not=h(x)\implies f(x)\not=g(x) \,or\ g(x)\not=h(x)] $$

Thus:

$$\{x|f(x)\not= h(x)\}\subseteq \{x|f(x)\not=g(x)\}\cup\{x|f(x)\not=g(x)\}$$

Now use the monotonicity of an outer measure along with the fact that the union of two null sets is a null set.

share|improve this answer
    
To appeal monotonicity of a measure, i think, firstly, it should be shown that $\{x|f(x)≠h(x)\}$ is measurable. –  Katlus Jan 13 '13 at 12:03
    
@Kaltus This is not necessary for an outer measure –  Amr Jan 13 '13 at 13:46
add comment

I'm assuming all our functions are $\mathbb{R}^n$ valued, with $\mathbb{R}^n$ given Lesbesgue measure. In general, for any two such $f,g$, $f-g$ is measurable, and so the set of points where $f \neq g$ is simply the preimage of $\mathbb{R}^n - 0$ under $f-g$, hence measurable.

Edit: As pointed out in other comments, for $Y$ arbitrary if the measure on $X$ is complete it follows this is an equivalence relation. I just wanted to add that if $Y$ is Hausdorff you don't need this: for any $f,g$, the set of points where $f = g$ is exactly the pullback of the diagonal of $Y \times Y$, which is closed.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.