Hello Mathematics Community. I was hoping someone could assist me in solving the following problem from Terrence Tao's Introduction to Measure Theory book. I am using the free online version of the text, and this problem can be found in section 1.7, on page 196; this is part (vi) of the exercise.

Show that the Lebesgue $\sigma-$algebra on $\mathbb{R}^{d+d'}$ is the completion of the product of the Lebesgue $\sigma-$algebras of $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mathbb{R}^{d'}$ with respect to $d+d'-$dimensional Lebesgue measure.

What I do know is that a $\sigma-$algebra is complete if it contains all the sets with outer measure 0. So if our measurable space is, say, $(X, \mathcal{B})$, then for any $E \subset X$ with $\mu^*(E)-0,$ and any $F$ $\in \mathcal{P(x)}$, we have

$\mu^*(F \cap E) + \mu^*(F \cap E^c)-\mu^*(F \cap E^c) \leq \mu^*(F)$. So $E$ is in the $\sigma-$algebra.

Furthermore, the book defines a product $\sigma-$algebra $\mathcal{B}_X \times \mathcal{B}_Y$ to be the $\sigma-$algebra generated by the union of the two $\sigma-$algebras:

$\mathcal{B}_X \times \mathcal{B}_Y := \langle \pi^*_X(\mathcal{B}_X) \cup \pi^*_Y(\mathcal{B}_Y) \rangle$ where $\pi_X$ and $\pi_Y$ are coordinate projection maps, respectively. How would I begin to prove this? Is Tonelli's Theorem applicable here since we are working with product measures?

As always, any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

A link to the free version is provided below:



Given measurable spaces $(X,\mathcal{M})$ and $(Y,\mathcal{N})$, we can consider the product measure space $(X\times Y,\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{N})$, where $\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{N}$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by products $M\times N$, where $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $N\in\mathcal{N}$ (this coincides with how you defined the product $\sigma$-algebra, and I think it is easier to see it this way).

If we have measure spaces $(X,\mathcal{M},\mu)$ and $(Y,\mathcal{N},\eta)$, then we can induce a measure $\mu\times\eta$, called the product measure, on $\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{N}$ with the property that $(\mu\times\eta)(M\times N)=\mu(M)\cdot\eta(N)$ for $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $N\in\mathcal{N}$. If the spaces in question are $\sigma$-finite, then the measure $\mu\times\eta$ with this property is unique.

Clearly, all this is true if we consider products of a finite number of measure spaces.

Given a topological space $X$, let $\mathscr{B}_X$ denote the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $X$ (which is generated by open sets). If $X$ is second countable (i.e., if it has a countable topological basis), then $\mathscr{B}_{X^n}=\mathscr{B}_X\times\cdots\times\mathscr{B}_X=:(\mathscr{B}_X)^n$ (you can easily verify this). In particular, $\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n}=(\mathscr{B}_\mathbb{R})^n$.

The usual definition of Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is the following: There exists a unique measure $\lambda$ on $\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ such that $\lambda_n(I_1\times\cdots I_n)=\operatorname{length}(I_1)\cdots\operatorname{length}(I_n)$ for all intervals $I_1,\ldots,I_n$. The Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is the completion of this measure, and it is also denoted by $\lambda$, and it is then defined in some other $\sigma$-algebra $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ which contains $\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n}$. When restricted to Borel sets, we have $\lambda_n=\lambda_1\times\cdots\times\lambda_1$.

However, it is not true that $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}=\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}$ (to be precise, this is not true if we assume the Axiom of Choice).

Finally, to solve the question, you should first show that $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^m}\subseteq\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$. You can do this using the definition of completion of measures, and using the fact that $\lambda_{n+m}=\lambda_n\times\lambda_m$ on Borel sets. Since $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$ is a complete $\sigma$-algebra (with respect to $\lambda_n$), then it contains the completion of $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^m}$.

On the other hand, it is clear that $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^m}$ contains $\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^m}=\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$, so the completion of $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^n}\times\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^m}$ contains the completion of $\mathscr{B}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$, which is by definition $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$ (here we again use the fact that $\lambda_{n+m}=\lambda_n\times\lambda_m$).

  • $\begingroup$ So by the definition of completion of measures, which means that it contains all subsets of outer measure zero, and the fact that $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$ is a complete $\sigma-$algebra, then we obtain the desired result? $\endgroup$ – Jamil_V Nov 4 '14 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ The first part (previous to last paragraph), yes. $\endgroup$ – Luiz Cordeiro Nov 4 '14 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I have been reading this over a bit. The first part, as mentioned, is done by definition of completion of measures and that $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+m}}$ is a complete $\sigma-$algebra. But the second part of this problem is to show that this is the completion over $d+d'$ dimensional Lebesgue measure. Is this correct? Or is the $d$ and $d'$ equal to the $m$ and $n$ in the answer? $\endgroup$ – Jamil_V Nov 6 '14 at 4:21
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, yes. You got the idea right. This gets kind of confusin because everything is called "Lebesgue", even though we sometimes restrict to Borel sets, etc... and I was using $n$ and $m$ instead of $d$ and $d'$, which maybe was not a great idea. $\endgroup$ – Luiz Cordeiro Nov 7 '14 at 22:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.