0
$\begingroup$

Definition of Measurable Space: An ordered pair $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ is a measurable space if $\mathcal{F}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$.

Definition of Measure: Let $(\Omega, F)$ be a measurable space, $μ$ is an non-negative function defined on $\mathcal{F}$ (that is $\mu: \mathcal{F} \to [0, +\infty]$). If $\mu(\emptyset) = 0$ and $\mu$ is countably additive (that is $A_n \in \mathcal{F}$, $n \geqslant 1$, $A_n \cap A_m = \emptyset$, $n \neq m \Rightarrow \mu(\cup_{n=1}^{\infty} A_n) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu(A_n)$) then $\mu$ is a measure on $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$.

Definition of Measure Space: Let μ is a measure on $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ then $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$ is a measure space.

Definition of Lebesgue Outer Measure: Given a set $E$ of $\mathbb R$, we define the Lebesgue Outer Measure of $E$ by, $$m^*(E) = \inf \left\{\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \ell(I_n): E \subset \bigcup_{n=1}^{+\infty}I_n \right\}$$ where $\ell(I_n)$ denotes the length of interval (bounded and nonempty interval).

Definition of Measurable Set: A set $E$ is measurable if $$m^*(T) = m^*(T \cap E) + m^*(T \cap E^c)$$ for every subset of $T$ of $\mathbb R$.

I'm trying to use write out the space in the form of $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$ where we talk about Lebesgue measurable sets in most Real Analysis books while few of them mention it. I call it Lebesgue measure space and I'm not sure whether such a name exist. If it is not correct, please help me correct it.

I think the space should be $(\mathbb R, \mathcal{M}, m^*)$ where $\mathcal{M}$ denotes all measurable sets on $\mathbb R$(It is a $\sigma$-algebra as well) and $m^*$ denotes the Lebesgue Outer Measure. Is it correct? or does anyone have other idea?

The reason is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurable_function. A Lebesgue measurable function is a measurable function $f : (\mathbf{R}, \mathcal{L}) \to (\mathbf{C}, \mathcal{B}_\mathbf{C})$, where $\mathcal{L}$ is the sigma algebra of Lebesgue measurable sets, and $\mathcal{B}_\mathbf{C}$ is the Borel algebra on the complex numbers C.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ People usually write $(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{M}, m)$, where $m = m^*|_{\mathcal{M}}$ is understood to be the restriction of $m^*$ to $\mathcal{M}$. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Aug 19 '15 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ It is usually called a measure algebra. The definition you quote for a Lebesgue -measurable set often puzzles beginners. Read further to see the def'n of inner measure. A set is measurable iff its inner and outer measure are equal. A real function is Lebesgue-measurable iff the inverse of every open set is a measurable set. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Aug 19 '15 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ @user254665: Oh, sorry. I use Caratheodory's definition of a measurable set. I learned the $\epsilon$ definition of measurable set as I was a beginner of real analysis. I know they two are equivalent while Caratheodory's seems to be more formal. I've noticed that your noun "measure algebra". Did you mean the formation of $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$ is a measure algebra? $\endgroup$ – Bear and bunny Aug 19 '15 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ @NateEldredge: Ok. Initially, I think I should write it as $(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{M}, m)$. However, I can't find a direct definition of $m$. So I use $m^*$ and since I have write out $\mathcal{M}$, a $\sigma$-Algebra of all measurable sets in $\mathbb R$, I think $m^*$ will be restricted to $\mathcal{M}$ automatically and actually becomes $m$. $\endgroup$ – Bear and bunny Aug 19 '15 at 14:41
1
$\begingroup$

So, essentially what's going on (as far as I was taught when I learned the subject) is this: we have the real line $\mathbb{R}$ and we have sets which we "know" what the measure of them ought to be: intervals. For convenience of the general theory, authors usually use half open intervals $(a,b]$ since they form an algebra $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})$. These also generate $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}}$. Now, we use the theory of premeasures: we define a premeasure $\mu_0$ on this algebra by defining $\mu_0(\emptyset)=0$ and $$\mu_0(\bigcup_1^{\infty} (a_i,b_i])=\sum_1^{\infty}\mu_0((a_i,b_i])=\sum_1^{\infty}(b_i-a_i)$$(actually, in general we can take any right continuous function here, defining $\mu_0((a,b])=f(b)-f(a)$ for $f$ right continuous, but it is most convenient to just use the identity).

Then, you use the general theory to show that you can derive an outer measure $m^{\ast}$ from this premeasure, and use Caratheodory's theorem to construct the full measure $m$ and the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{L}$. We know that $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}}\subset \mathcal{L}$ since $\mathcal{A}$, the algebra of half intervals, generates $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}}$. However, it is not obvious that $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}}\not=\mathcal{L}$, but in fact this is true.

The Lebesgue measure space is in fact $(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{L},m)$, although you can often restrict to just the Borel sets.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathcal{L}$ denotes the set of all measurable sets on $\mathbb R$? $\endgroup$ – Bear and bunny Aug 19 '15 at 14:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, it is the completion of $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}}$ under the Lebesgue measure as specified by Caratheodory's theorem. $\endgroup$ – Moya Aug 19 '15 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathcal {B}_{\mathbb R}\sim \mathbb R$ while $\mathcal L\sim \mathcal 2^{\mathbb R}$ (in terms of cardinality). $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Romon Nov 8 '16 at 6:21
  • $\begingroup$ also, it's not any right continuous, functions, it's right continuous and non-decreasing functions. $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Romon Nov 8 '16 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ lastly, I think you need to consider the algebra generated by intervals $(a,b]$, not just the set of such intervals. $\endgroup$ – Gabriel Romon Nov 8 '16 at 6:39

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.