Let $\Sigma$ be a $\sigma$-algebra on a set $X$. (Unsigned) measures $\mu,\nu:\Sigma\rightarrow[0,+\infty]$ can be ordered "elementwise" ($\mu \le \nu$ if $\mu(E) \le \nu(E)$ for each measurable set $E$). So given two such measures $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$, what would be their infimum (greatest lower bound) $\mu$ in this sense?

Given a measurable set $E\in\Sigma$, and another measurable set $A\in\Sigma$, $\mu(E)$ has to satisfy $$ \mu(E) = \mu(E\cap A)+\mu(E\cap A^c) \le \mu_1(E\cap A)+\mu_2(E\cap A^c) $$ so $\mu(E)$ should not exceed the infimum of the right hand side, and it is not hard to show that this infimum defines a measure (use usual $\epsilon/2^n$ argument to show countable additivity). So the infimum of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ is given by $$ \mu(E) = \inf\{\mu_1(E\cap{A})+\mu_2(E\cap{A^c})\mid A\text{ measurable set}\} $$ Equivalently, one could limit the sets $A$ to be subsets of $E$.

Now my question: Can this infimum always be realized? Given $E\in\Sigma$, can we always find some measurable subset $A$ that achieves the infimum?

For example, if $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ are given by density functions $f_1$, $f_2$ with respect to Lebesgue measure, $A$ can be chosen to be the set of points where $f_1(x) \le f_2(x)$. But I don't see how to show it is possible in general measure spaces. Is there a counterexample in the general case?


It does generalize, at least if $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are $\sigma$-finite.

Let $\nu = \mu_1 + \mu_2$. Then $\nu$ is a measure and $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are both absolutely continuous wrt $\nu$, so by Radon-Nikodym there are $f_1, f_2$ that are densities for $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ wrt $\nu$.
Then you can take $A = \{x: f_1(x) \le f_2(x)\}$.

EDIT: Yes, the infimum is attained. If $\mu(E) = \infty$, you must have $\mu_1(E) = \infty$ so you can take $A=E$. So suppose $\mu(E) = m < \infty$. For each positive integer $n$ there is some measurable $A_n \subseteq E$ such that $\mu_1(E \cap A_n) + \mu_2(E \cap A_n^c) < m + 1/n$. Let $B = \bigcap_n A_n$, $C = \bigcap_n A_n^c$, and $D = E \backslash (B \cup C)$. Then $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are $\sigma$-finite on $D$, so the restrictions of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ to $D$ have densities $f_1$, $f_2$ with respect to their sum, and you can take $A = B \cup \{x \in D: f_1(x) \le f_2(x)\}$.

However, one thing you can't do in general is find a set $A \in \Sigma$ that works for every set $E \in \Sigma$.

Let $\Sigma$ be a $\sigma$-algebra that contains all singletons, and $B$ a subset of $X$ that is not in $\Sigma$. Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be counting measure on $B$ and $B^c$ respectively. Thus for any set $E \in \Sigma$, $\mu_1(E)$ and $\mu_2(E)$ are the numbers (possibly $\infty$) of points in $E \cap B$ and $E \cap B^c$ respectively. If $x$ is a single point we have $\mu_1(\{x\}) = 1$ and $\mu_2(\{x\}) = 0$ if $x \in B$, $\mu_1(\{x\}) = 0$ and $\mu_2(\{x\}) = 1$ otherwise. Thus the only possible $A$ that works for all $E$ is $B^c$, but this is not in $\Sigma$.

  • $\begingroup$ Nice general argument. $\endgroup$ – PatrickR Jan 3 '15 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ In the last sentence, I think you mean the only possible $A$ that works would be $B^c$. $\endgroup$ – PatrickR Jan 3 '15 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for catching that -- edited. $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Jan 4 '15 at 2:16

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.