10
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $(f_n)_n$ is a sequence of measurable functions on a set $E$ and that $f_n \to f$ a.e.on $E$. Does this imply that $f$ is measurable?

I know that pointwise limit of measurable function is measurable. But here we only have convergence a.e. So I got confused.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What are you confused about? Is the underlying measure space complete? $\endgroup$ – copper.hat Jan 7 '15 at 21:09
16
$\begingroup$

That depends on the exact context.

In general, $f$ will not be measurable. To see this, simply take $(X, \{\emptyset, X\}, \mu)$ as your measure space, with $\mu(\emptyset) = 0 = \mu(X)$.

Then $f_n \to f$ almost everywhere holds for every sequence $(f_n)_n$ and every map $f$, but only constant maps are measurable.


Now assume that your measure space $(X, \Sigma, \mu)$ is complete. This means that if $A \in \Sigma$ with $B \subset A$ and $\mu(A) = 0$, then also $B \in \Sigma$.

Then $f$ is measurable. To see this, first note that if $f = g$ almost everywhere (i.e. on $N^c$ with $\mu(N) = 0$) and $g$ is measurable, then so is $f$, because for every interval $I \subset \Bbb{R}$, we have

\begin{eqnarray*} f^{-1}(I) &=& [f^{-1}(I) \cap N^c] \cup [f^{-1}(I) \cap N] \\ &=& [g^{-1}(I) \cap N^c] \cup [f^{-1}(I) \cap N]. \end{eqnarray*}

But $N,N^c$ are measurable and $g$ is measurable. Hence, $g^{-1}(I) \cap N^c$ is measurable.

Finally, since your measure space is complete, $f^{-1}(I) \cap N$ is measurable (because it is a subset of the null-set $N$).

Hence, $f^{-1}(I)$ is measurable.

Now let $g := \liminf_n f_n$. Then $g$ is measurable and $f = g$ almost everywhere because of $f_n \to f$ almost everywhere. By the above, this implies that $f$ is measurable.


Finally note that the Lebesgue measure equipped with the $\sigma$-algebra of Lebesgue measurable sets is complete, but equipped with the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel measurable sets, it is not complete.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think your counterexample is quite right. Consider, for example, $X = \{0,1\}$, $f_n(x) = 0$ for all $n$, and $f(x) = x$. The set where the $f_n$ and $f$ disagree is $\{1\}$, which is not even measurable. Moreover, $f^{-1}(\emptyset) = \emptyset$ and $f^{-1}(X) = X$, so $f$ is a non-constant measurable function. $\endgroup$ – Tony Mottaz Sep 7 '16 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ @AnthonyMottaz: Ok, with the word "function" I was referring to functions $f: X \to \mathbb{R}$ or $f : X \to \mathbb{C}$. In this case, only constant functions are measurable. Also, it does not matter that $\{1\}$ is not measurable. The (at least my) definition of $f_n \to f$ a.e. is that there is some null-set $N$ (take $N=X$ in this setting) such that $f_n (x) \to f(x)$ for all $x \in X \setminus N$. But thanks for the comment. I will clarify my answer slightly this afternoon. $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX Sep 7 '16 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ Got it. That clears things up. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Tony Mottaz Sep 7 '16 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ @PhoemueX. I added an alternative view on this - would appreciate your opinion. $\endgroup$ – Tom Collinge Mar 16 '18 at 11:39
1
$\begingroup$

I agree with the answer by @PhoemueX, but maybe not with the question ! Consider an alternative .......

Suppose that $\{f_n\}$ is a $\mu$-.a.e. convergent sequence and define $f = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} f_n$ where the limit exists. Then $f$ is a $\mu$-.a.e. defined function and $f$ is measurable.

Clearly $f$ is $\mu$-.a.e. defined, to prove measurability.....

... let A be the null-set on which $\{f_n\}$ fails to converge.
Then $f_n |_{X \setminus A}$ is a measurable function on $X \setminus A$ and converges to a limit $f$ on $X \setminus A$ which is measurable by the normal convergence theorem. Then $f$ is a $\mu$-.a.e. defined measurable function on X.

In terms of the counterexample in the previous answer, only constant functions are measurable and therefore a sequence of constants converge everywhere or nowhere. In the latter case, $X$ is the "null-set" where the sequence fails to converge and $f$ is defined "almost everywhere" except on $X$ - i.e. it is nowhere defined, but this still fits the definition of $\mu$-.a.e. defined in this case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This looks good; just two points: 1) If the underlying measure space is not complete, then talking about "a.e. defined functions" is a bit tricky. Maybe it would be better to just set $f(x) = 0$ for $x \in A$. With this choice, we definitely have measurability. 2) I would maybe add a brief remark on why the set $X \setminus A$ on which pointwise convergence occurs is measurable. This is because $X \setminus A = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty \bigcup_{m=1}^\infty \bigcap_{k,\ell = m}^\infty \{x \in X \,:\, |f_k (x) - f_\ell(x)| \leq 1/n \}$. $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX Mar 18 '18 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ @PhoemueX Can you please explain further why $X-A=\bigcap_{n=1}^{\infty}\bigcup_{m=1}^{\infty}\bigcap_{k,l=m}^{\infty}\{x\in X:|f_k(x)-f_l(x)|\leq 1/n\}$ implies the measurability of $f$? $\endgroup$ – Ya G Mar 19 '18 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Ya: Because then $f_n \cdot 1_{X\setminus A}$ converges to $f$ (which we set to zero on $A$) everywhere, and these are measurable(!), and the pointwise limit of measurable functions is measurable. $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX Mar 19 '18 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ @PhoemueX Can you explain why your first point (1) holds, that is if we set $f(x)=0$ for $x\in A$, then $f$ is measurable? $\endgroup$ – nan Apr 10 '18 at 15:30
  • $\begingroup$ @nan: Because $f_n \cdot 1_{A^c}$ is measurable, and $f_n \cdot 1_{A^c} \to f$ pointwise. $\endgroup$ – PhoemueX Apr 11 '18 at 21:19

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.