8
$\begingroup$

The following is the definition of the product $\sigma$-algebra given in Gerald Folland's Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications (pg. 22) (note that $\mathcal{M}(X)$ denotes the smallest $\sigma$-algebra generated by the set $X$):

"Let $\{X_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha \in A}$ be an indexed collection of nonempty sets, $X=\prod_{\alpha \in A} X_{\alpha}$, and $\pi_{\alpha}: X \to X_{\alpha}$ the coordinate maps. If $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra on $X_{\alpha}$ for each $\alpha$, the product $\sigma$-algebra on $X$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by \begin{equation} \{\pi_{\alpha}^{-1}(E_{\alpha}): E_{\alpha} \in \mathcal{M}_{\alpha}, \alpha \in A \} \end{equation} We denote this $\sigma$-algebra by $\otimes_{\alpha \in A} \mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$."

With $A=\{1,2\}$, the wikipedia definition says that the product $\sigma$-algebra is given by: \begin{equation} \mathcal{M}_{1} \times \mathcal{M}_{2} = \mathcal{M}\left(\{E_{1} \times E_{2} : E_{1} \in \mathcal{M}_{1}, E_{2} \in \mathcal{M}_{2} \} \right) \end{equation}

I understand the Wikipedia definition. However, I am new to measure theory and am having trouble reconciling Folland's definition with the Wikipedia definition.

Assuming $A=\{1,2\}$ for simplicity, can someone show me why the two definitions of the product $\sigma$-algebra are the same?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you continue reading, in page 23, proposition 1.3, you can see that the countable case is this one mentioned in wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – Integral Jul 22 '15 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Integral How is the countability condition used in Proposition 1.3? $\endgroup$ – ziyuang Dec 1 '17 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ @ziyuang Not condition, it's case. Did you read the proposition and the Wikipedia article? $\endgroup$ – Integral Dec 2 '17 at 12:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Integral Yes, if rephrasing my question: if $A$ were uncountable, which part of proposition 1.3's proof would go wrong? $\endgroup$ – ziyuang Dec 2 '17 at 17:07
8
$\begingroup$

We can write

\begin{align} \bigl\{ \pi_\alpha^{-1}(E_\alpha) : E_\alpha \in \mathcal{M}_\alpha, \alpha \in \{1,2\}\bigr\} &= \{ \pi_1^{-1}(E_1) : E_1 \in \mathcal{M}_1\} \cup \{ \pi_2^{-1}(E_2) : E_2 \in \mathcal{M}_2\}\\ &= \{ E_1 \times X_2 : E_1\in \mathcal{M}_1\} \cup \{ X_1 \times E_2 : E_2 \in \mathcal{M}_2\}. \end{align}

In this form it is clear that this generating set is contained in

$$\{ E_1 \times E_2 : E_\alpha \in \mathcal{M}_\alpha\},$$

and on the other hand, every set in the latter generating family is the intersection of two members of the former, so the two families generate the same $\sigma$-algebra.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

$$E_1\times E_2=\pi_1^{-1}(E_1)\cap\pi_2^{-1}(E_2)$$ so is measurable w.r.t.to the first mentioned $\sigma$-algebra.


$$\pi_1^{-1}(E_1)=E_1\times X_2$$ and

$$\pi_2^{-1}(E_2)=X_1\times E_2$$ so both sets are measurable w.r.t. the second mentioned $\sigma$-algebra.

This together proves that the mentioned $\sigma$-algebras coincide.

$\endgroup$

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.