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.

On a measure space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$, in Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis, with some modification of notations:

If there is a set $A \in \mathcal{F}$ such that $\mu(E) = \mu(A \cap E) $ for every $E \in \mathcal{F}$, we say that $\mu$ is concentrated on $A$.

I was wondering if according to the definition, it is true that $\mu$ is concentrated on $A \in \mathcal{F}$ if and only if $\mu(A) = \mu(\Omega) $? If yes, why was the definition made more complicated than what it is?

Thanks and regards!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

You are right that the condition is too complicated for finite (positive) measures and that in that case your proposed definition is equivalent because $\mu(\Omega) = \mu(A) + \mu(\Omega \smallsetminus A)$, so $\mu(\Omega \smallsetminus A) = 0$ if $\mu$ is finite and positive (hence $\mu$ doesn't charge any subset of $\Omega \smallsetminus A$).

The point is that the measure might be infinite and our argument is no longer valid since we might have used $\infty - \infty =0$, which isn't a good idea. For example, if you think of Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}$ then $\mu([0,\infty)) = \infty$, but it doesn't quite make sense to say that Lebesgue measure is concentrated on $[0,\infty)$, since it charges sets in the negative reals as well. This also illustrates why we don't want to say $\infty - \infty = 0$ in many situations.

Moreover, the definition of Rudin also is the correct one for signed measures.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! A further question is about two measures u and v on the same measurable space. u and v are called mutually singular if there exists disjoint measurable subsets A and B, such that u is concentrated on A and v is on B. Are u and v mutually singular if and only if u is zero wherever v is not, and v is zero wherever u is not? –  Tim May 12 '11 at 13:53
    
@Tim: Yes, that's right. –  t.b. May 12 '11 at 14:49
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.