1
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff (l.c.H.) space with topology $\tau$. Then one usually defines $\mathcal{B}(X) = \sigma(\tau)$ as the smallest $\sigma$-algebra that contains the open sets $\tau$.

The following construction can be found in Dinculeanu, "Vector Measures", chapter III. For every compact subset $K \subseteq X$ the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{B}(K)$ on $K$ can be considered as a $\sigma$-ring on $X$ that is then contained in $\mathcal{B}(X)$. Set $\mathcal{B}_c(X) := \bigcup_K \mathcal{B}(K) \subseteq \mathcal{B}(X)$ where the union is taken over all compact subsets $K \subseteq X$. In general, $\mathcal{B}_c(X)$ is not a $\sigma$-algebra (it is the $\delta$-ring generated by compact subsets of $X$). Denote by $\mathcal{T}(X) := \{ E \subseteq X \mid A \cap E \in \mathcal{B}_c(X) \text{ for all } A \in \mathcal{B}_c(X) \}$. Then $\mathcal{T}(X)$ is a $\sigma$-algebra.

Dinculeanu refers to $\mathcal{T}(X)$ as the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel subsets of $X$.

Now I was confused about the relation between the "Borel $\sigma$-algebra" $\mathcal{B}(X)$ and the "$\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets" $\mathcal{T}(X)$. For a general l.c.H. space $X$ he shows that $\mathcal{B}(X) \subseteq \mathcal{T}(X)$. If $X$ is $\sigma$-compact then it is also not hard to show that $\mathcal{B}(X) = \mathcal{T}(X)$. But there are also examples of l.c.H spaces that are not $\sigma$-compact and for which this equality holds, e.g. if $X$ is an arbitrary uncountable set equipped with the discrete topology $\mathcal{P}(X)$ then $\mathcal{B}(X) = \mathcal{P}(X) = \mathcal{T}(X)$.

Does the equality $\mathcal{B}(X) = \mathcal{T}(X)$ hold for all l.c.H. spaces?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure this will work. Let $X=\cup_{i\in \omega_1}I_i$ be the topological sum of $I_i:i\in \omega_1$ where $i\ne j\to I_i\cap I_j=\phi$ and each $I_i$ is homeomorphic to $I=[0,1]$....Now for any space $Y$ let $b(0,Y)$ be the Boolean algebra on $Y$ generated by the open sets. For $i\in \omega_1$ let $b(i+1,Y)$ be the algebra generated by intersections of countable subsets of $b(i,Y).$ When $i$ is a non-zero limit ordinal let $b(i,Y)=\cup_{j<i}b(j,Y). $ Then $B(Y)=b(\omega_1,Y).$ It is known (proved,I think, by Borel) that $B(I)\ne b(i,I)$ for any $i\in \omega_1. $ So $\forall i\in \omega_1 :b(i+1,I_i)\backslash b(i,I_i)\ne \phi.$....Now suppose $$T_i\in b(i+1,I_i)\backslash b(i,I_i) \text { for each } i\in \omega_1.$$ $$\text { Conjecture: } \cup \{T_i :i\in \omega_1\}\in (T(X)\backslash B(X).$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are the sets $b(i,Y)$ related to the Borel hierarchy? $\endgroup$ – yada Dec 10 '15 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ The sets b(i,Y) are closely related to the Borel hierarchy.For example b(i,Y) contains the F-sigma and G-delta sets but if Y is a subspace of R with int (Y) non-empty then b(1,Y) does not contain all $F_{\sigma \delta}$ sets. If we let the Borel hierarchy be $\{B(j,Y) : j \in \omega_1\}$ then $\forall i\in \omega \exists j\in \omega_1 (b(i,Y\subset B(j,Y))$. $\endgroup$ – DanielWainfleet Dec 11 '15 at 6:00

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.