2
$\begingroup$

In measure and integration theory we sometimes work with measurable functions $$ f: (X, \mathfrak{A}) \to (\overline{\mathbb{R}}, \overline{\mathfrak{B}}),$$ where $(X,\mathfrak{A})$ denotes an arbitrary measure space, $\overline{\mathbb{R}}:= \mathbb{R}\cup \{\infty,-\infty\}$ and $\overline{\mathfrak{B}}$ the $\sigma$-algebra of the Borel sets. In addition to the "natural" definitions of sum and multiplication in this space the author of my book (Elstrodt; german reference) "arbitrarily" defines $$0 \cdot (\pm \infty) := (\pm \infty) \cdot 0 =:= 0,\quad \infty - \infty := -\infty + \infty := 0. $$

  • Later on, there appears a theorem stating that for two measurable functions $f,g$ defined as above and $\alpha, \beta \in \overline{\mathbb{R}}$ their linear combination $\alpha f + \beta g$ is again measurable.
  • In the chapter on Lebesgue-integrable functions, there is a theorem for $f, g$ as above with measure $\mu$ on $\mathfrak{A}$ and $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{R}$ (no overline intended!), where he proves that $\alpha f + \beta g$ is again Lebesgue-integrable with $$ \int_X (\alpha f + \beta g) \mathrm{d}\mu = \alpha \int_X f \mathrm{d}\mu + \beta \int_X g \mathrm{d}\mu.$$

Finally, he remarks that the set of the Lebesgue-integrable functions with values in $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ does not form a vectorspace with respect to pointwise addition, if there is a non-empty set of $\mu$-measure 0.

Now my questions:

  • When we talk about vector spaces, in this context we mean vector spaces over the field $\mathbb{R}$, since $\overline{\mathbb{R}}$ is not a field, right?
  • Do the measurable functions form a vector space over $\mathbb{R}$?
  • Do you understand the author's remark? Can you give an example?
  • Many other authors define the vector space of Lebesgue-integrable functions on functions which only take values in $\mathbb{R}$, since "$\infty - \infty$ is not defined". I think this is a poor explanation, since we can indeed define this difference and it won't affect the integrability of the difference of two functions since these values are only attained on sets of $\mu$-measure zero. What am I missing?
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ What about $f = \frac1x$ and $g = -\frac1x + 1$? Then $f+g = 1$ but $f(0) + g(0) \ne 1$. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Aug 9 '15 at 19:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex Is that the case that $f+g=1$? How are you defining $f$ and $g$ at $0$?. He didn't say $1/0:= \infty$ at any point. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Aug 9 '15 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ @AloizioMacedo As long as you agree that $f-f = 0$, you'll have to also agree that $f+g = f-f+1 = 1$. But $f-f = 0$ is one of the corollaries of the vector space axioms. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Aug 9 '15 at 19:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I've never seen the definition $\infty - \infty =0$ before. $\endgroup$ – zhw. Aug 9 '15 at 19:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @zhw I haven't either.. Authors usually avoid trying to define that operation since it leads to a lot of contradictions if you want to keep associativity. I feel like we are missing something important here.. Perhaps this is an exercise to show that defining a difference of infinities is a bad idea. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Aug 9 '15 at 19:25
5
$\begingroup$

Indeed, usually one allows non-negative functions to take the value $+\infty$, but one usually doesn't talk about integrable functions taking values in $\overline{\Bbb R}$. There are good reasons for that; I shuddered when I saw that definition $\infty-\infty=0$. I hope his main point in doing this is to point out that it's not a good idea...

Anyway. If the empty set is the only null set then an integrable function is finite everywhere and so the integrable functions form a vector space. (A vector space over $\Bbb R$; no, $\overline{\Bbb R}$ is not a field.)

But now say $E\ne\emptyset$ and $\mu(E)=0$. Now an integrable function can take infinite values, and we no longer have a vector space. One of the axioms for a vector space is this: $$(c+d)f=cf+df$$for any vector $f$ and scalars $c,d$. Say there's a point $x$ where $f(x)=+\infty$. Let $c=2$ and $d=-1$. Then $$(cf(x))+(df(x))=(2(\infty))-\infty=\infty-\infty=0,$$while $$(c+d)f(x)=(1)\infty=\infty.$$ So $(c+d)f\ne cf+df$. Bad.

And there's no way to define $\infty-\infty$ to fix this.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I am starting to feel bad about my question, but I think the reason for my confusion may be that I confused the concept of a vector space and the concept of a sub vector space. The two theorems I quoted only state that the set of measurable functions and Lebesgue-integrable functions (taking ∞ as a value) is closed under linear combination. But this is not the equivalent of being a vector space... Thanks! $\endgroup$ – el_tenedor Aug 9 '15 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ There's absolutely no reason to feel bad about the question! It was a very reasonable question; your confusion was perfectly understandable. Sounds like you have it straight now... $\endgroup$ – David C. Ullrich Aug 9 '15 at 19:50

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.