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.

A measure $\lambda: B(\mathbb{R}^n) \rightarrow \overline{{\mathbb{R_{\ge 0}}}}$ that is associated with a monotone increasing and right-side continuous function $F$ is called a Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure. But I am wondering, why it is not true that every measure $\lambda: B(\mathbb{R}^n) \rightarrow \overline{{\mathbb{R_{\ge 0}}}}$ is a Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure?

share|improve this question
Every Borel measure is a Lebesgue-Stieltjes, provided it is finite on bounded sets. –  Prahlad Vaidyanathan Apr 22 at 17:19
If you assume $\lambda$ to take only values in $\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ then you have a bijection of Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures and equivalence classes of associated monotone increasing and right-side continous functions $F$. But I guess you already know that and you're asking for the case of $\overline{{\mathbb{R_{\ge 0}}}}$ –  cQQkie Apr 22 at 17:36

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

$\mu$ being a lebesgue-stiltjes measure with corresponding function $F$ implies that $$ \mu\left((a,b]\right) = F(b) - F(a) \text{.} $$

Now take the (rather silly) measure $$ \mu(X) = \begin{cases} \infty &\text{if $0 \in X$} \\ 1 &\text{if $0 \notin X$, $1 \in X$} \\ 0 &\text{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$

We'd need to have $F(x) = \infty$ for $x \geq 0$ and $F(x) = 0$ for $x < 0$ to have $\mu\left((a,b]\right) = F(b) - F(a)$ for $a < 0$, $b \geq 0$. But then $$ \mu\left((0,2]\right) = F(2) - F(0) = \infty - \infty $$ which is

  1. meaningless, and
  2. surely not the same as $1$, which is the actual measure of $(0,2]$.

Note that a measure doesn't necessarily need to have infinite point weights (i.e., $x$ for which $\mu(\{x\}) = \infty$ to cause trouble. Here's another measure on $B(\mathbb{R})$ which isn't a lebesgue-stiltjes measure $$ \mu(X) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}, \frac{1}{n} \in X} \frac{1}{n} \text{.} $$ For every $\epsilon > 0$, $\mu\left((0,\epsilon]\right) = \infty$, which again would require $F(x) = \infty$ for $x > 0$, and again that conflicts the requirement that $\mu((a,b]) = F(b) - F(a) < \infty$ for $0 < a \leq b$. Note that this measure $\mu$ is even $\sigma$-finite! You can write $\mathbb{R}$ as the countable union $$ \mathbb{R} = \underbrace{(-\infty,0]}_{=A} \cup \underbrace{(1,\infty)}_{=B} \cup \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \underbrace{(\tfrac{1}{n+1},\tfrac{1}{n}]}_{=C_n} $$ and all the sets have finite measure ($\mu(A)=\mu(B) = 0$, $\mu(C_n) = \frac{1}{n}$).

You do have that all finite (i.e., not just $\sigma$-finite, but fully finite) measures on $B(\mathbb{R})$ are lebesgue-stiltjes measures, however. This is important, for example, for probability theory, because it allows you to assume that every random variable on $\mathbb{R}$ has a cumulative distribution function (CDF), which is simply the function $F$.

share|improve this answer
What if both $0$ and $1$ are in $X$? –  cQQkie Apr 22 at 17:39
@cQQkie Then the measure is $\infty$. Will make it say that explicitly. –  fgp Apr 22 at 17:43

If you have a measure $\mu$ in $\mathbb{R}$ that is finite in compact sets then we define the function

$$ F(x) = \begin{cases} \mu((0,x])&\text{if $x > 0$} \\ -\mu((x,0]) &\text{if $x < 0 $} \\ 0 &\text{if $x=0$} \end{cases} $$

Then $F$ is increasing càdlag function and $\mu = \mu_{F}$. This also shows that every measure in $\mathbb{R}$ which are finite in compact sets is regular.

share|improve this answer
Minor correction: It's "càdlàg", continue à droite, limite à gauche. –  kahen Apr 22 at 19:10

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.