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.

Hey, I'm reading the proof of proposition 6.8 in Big Rudin, pg. 120. I'll just mention where my confusion lies: Suppose K is an arbitrary measure (complex, real, whatever). In the proof of property (f), Rudin says that if K(A) = 0, and F is a subset of A, then K(F) = 0. Rudin has forced that by construction in chapter 1 for positive measures, but why should it work for complex or signed measures? Does there exist two sets A,B such that A is a subset of B, measure of B is 0, but measure of A is non-zero (negative?), for some arbitrary measure?

EDIT: Rudin's prop 6.8, part (f) says: given two arbitrary measures $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, a positive measure $\mu$. If $\lambda_1 \ll \mu$, and $\lambda_2 \perp \mu$, then $\lambda_1 \perp \lambda_2$.

Also, $\ll$ and $\perp$ denote absolute continuity and mutual singularity, respectively.

share|improve this question
1  
How about $K = \delta_{0} - \delta_1$, $B = \{0,1\}$ and $A_{0} = \{0\}$ and $A_{1} = \{1\}$, to give two silly examples? It would be helpful if you said what Rudin's prop. 6.8 says and what property (e) is since not everybody has Rudin at hand. –  t.b. May 15 '11 at 21:16
    
Yikes, I meant (f). I'll correct this now! I've also added in the whole statement for those who don't own Rudin, apologies for the oversight. –  paul May 15 '11 at 21:27
    
I still don't quite see the confusion. By hypothesis $\lambda_{2}$ is concentrated on some set $A$ on the complement which $\mu$ vanishes. As $\lambda_{1} \ll \mu$, we must have that $\lambda_{1}$ vanishes on the complement of $A$ as well. Maybe applying (e) that $|\lambda_{1}| \ll \mu$ helps understanding what's going on? –  t.b. May 15 '11 at 21:39
    
Theo, I get everything that you're saying. It's just that in the proof of (f), we can infer from absolutely continuity that $\lambda_1(A) = 0$, and then Rudin says $\lambda_1(E) = 0$ for all $E \subset A$. But how can you conclude that last point if you assume that $\lambda_1$ is arbitrary? Everything else is crystal clear to me. –  paul May 15 '11 at 21:42
    
Well, because $\mu(E) = 0$ for all $E \subset A$, as $\mu$ is positive. (Oops: I shouldn't have said on "the complement of which" - delete "the complement of" in my previous comment) –  t.b. May 15 '11 at 21:44

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Observe that $\mu$ is positive. Since $\mu$ is positive and $\mu \perp \lambda_{2}$, the latter is concentrated on a $\mu$-null set $A$. But as $\lambda_{1} \ll \mu$ and $\mu$ is positive, we conclude for all measurable $E \subset A$ that $\mu(E) = 0$, hence $\lambda_{1}(E) = 0$ by absolute continuity, and thus $\lambda_{1}$ is concentrated on the complement of $A$. In other words, $\lambda_{1} \perp \lambda_{2}$.

share|improve this answer

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.