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.

The following theorem has been mentioned (and partially proved) in the book Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Problems by Luigi Ambrosio et. al.

Let $\mu,\nu$ be positive measures on $(X,\mathcal{E})$. Assume that they are equal on a collection of sets $\mathcal{G}$ which is closed under finite intersections. Also assume that there are sets $X_h \in \mathcal{G}$ such that $\displaystyle{X= \bigcup_{h=1}^\infty X_h}$ and that $\mu(X_h) = \nu(X_h) < \infty$ for all $h$. Then $\mu, \nu$ are equal on the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $\mathcal{G}$.

The authors prove the theorem for the case where $\mu,\nu$ are positive finite measures and $\mu(X) = \nu(X)$ and say that the general case follows easily. However, this is not at all straight forward for me. I have tried to prove this but cannot reach a valid proof. Here is my attempt at a proof:

Let $G_h = \{g \cap X_h | g \in G\}$. Then clearly from using the finite case of the theorem, we have that $\mu,\nu$ coincide on every $\sigma (G_h)$. My problem now is to show that this implies that they agree on $\sigma(G)$. All my attempts in this direction have been futile.

I feel that the solution should be relatively easy (as the authors themselves point out). Any help in the proof is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Phanindra

share|improve this question
    
The index $h$ runs over a countable set? –  Jonas Meyer Jul 11 '11 at 7:46
    
$h$ runs over $\mathbb{N}$ –  jpv Jul 11 '11 at 8:08
    
changed "$\sigma$-finite" to "general" as $\sigma$-finite tends to imply an increasing family and there is no such restriction on $X_h$ –  jpv Jul 11 '11 at 14:37
    
jpv: No, your question is still about the $\sigma$-finite case. Whether or not $X_k\subseteq X_{k+1}$ makes no difference. You could assume WLOG that it is increasing if for some reason this helps you, by replacing $X_k$ with $\displaystyle{\cup_{j=1}^k X_j}$. –  Jonas Meyer Jul 11 '11 at 17:47

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The collection of $A \in \mathcal{E}$ such that $\mu(A \cap X_h) = \nu(A \cap X_h)$ for all $h$ forms a $\sigma$-algebra containing $\sigma(G)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Let, $H = \{A \in \mathcal{E} | \mu(A \cap X_h) = \nu(A \cap X_h), \forall h\}$. If $A_i \in H \forall i$ then is it true that $\cup_i A_i \in H$? –  jpv Jul 11 '11 at 11:26
    
Yes, by looking at $(\bigcup_i A_i) \cap X_h = \bigcup_i(A_i \cap X_h)$ for each $h$. –  user83827 Jul 11 '11 at 16:01
    
I see now. Even though $X_h$ are not assumed to be pairwise disjoint, we can create a pairwise disjoint $X_h^\prime$ (as given below by Jonas Meyer) and $\mu(X_h^\prime) = \nu(X_h^\prime)~\forall h$. Then $H$ above is a $\sigma$-field and so $\mu=\nu$ on all of $\sigma(G)$. The only discomfort right now is, where is the finite case of the proof used here? –  jpv Jul 11 '11 at 16:26
    
I guess perhaps the result isn't used explicitly, but the argument is used in showing the right closure properties when you intersect your sets with each $h$. There's probably some contrived way of rephrasing things to use the finite case literally, but it's probably not as intuitive. –  user83827 Jul 11 '11 at 16:31

Note that if $\nu$ is a $\sigma$-finite non negative measure then on a $\sigma$-algebra $G$ then every finite nonnegative measurable function $f$ defines the $\sigma$-finite measure $\mu:=f.\nu$. We can take $f$ to be a characteristic function. This is because, if $f$ is integrable then it defines a set function $\mu(A)= \int_A f d\nu$.

In general, statements involving $\sigma$-finite "situations" can always be reduced to the finite case (see Bogachev section 2.6).

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.