0
$\begingroup$

I aim to show the following result:

Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a nondecreasing, continuously differentiable function and let $\lambda_f$ be the corresponding Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure generated by $f$. Consider valid $\lambda_f << \lambda$ (that is, $\lambda_f$ is absolutely continous with respect to $\lambda$). Prove that $$\lambda_f(E)=\int_Ef'd\lambda,~~~~\text{for all}~E~\text{measurable}.$$ (that is, $f'$ is the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $\lambda_f$)

My attempt was to show that $\lambda_f(E)=\int_Ef'd\lambda$ for all $E$ measurable, because from Radon-Nikodym theorem, the derivative is $\lambda$-a.e. unique. I'd already proved that $\lambda_f(E)\geq\int_Ef'd\lambda$ (just a half of the problem), but I found my proof was too long.

Any hint for the problem in general or at least for the reverse inequality?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Another approach is possible: since $f$ is continuous and nondecreasing we have: $$ \lambda_{f}((x,y])=f(y)-f(x)$$ Since $\lambda_{f} << \lambda$, from the differentiation theorem for monotone functions (they are a.e differentiable) and the theorem about measure derivation (see below), we have: $$ \frac{d\lambda_{f}}{d \lambda}=\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\lambda_{f}(B(x,r))}{\lambda(B(x,r))}=\lim_{y \rightarrow x} \frac{\lambda_{f}((x,y])}{y-x}=f'(x) \ \ a.e $$ The claim follows by the Radon-Nikodym theorem.

For completeness, I post the theorems mentioned above:

Derivation of measures and Radon derivative

We define the derivative of the measure $\mu$ with respect to another measure $\lambda$ as: $$D_{\lambda}(\mu)(x)=\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\mu(B(x,r))}{\lambda(B(x,r))}$$ (to be more precise we should define the upper and lower derivatives first, then the derivative would be defined only if lower and upper ones agree). Let now $\lambda$ be the lebesgue measure and $\mu$ a $\sigma$-finite measure absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda$. Then the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $\mu$ wrt $\lambda$ and $D_{\lambda}(\mu)$ agree almost everywhere, that is: $$D_{\lambda}(\mu)(x)=\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\mu(B(x,r))}{\lambda(B(x,r))}=\frac{d \mu}{d \lambda} \qquad a.e $$

This theorem can be proved (at least if $\lambda$ is the Lebesgue measure) with:

Lebesgue differentiation theorem

If $f \in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb{R})$, then $$ \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\lambda(B(x,r))} \int_{B(x,r)} f(t) \, d\lambda(t) = f(x) \qquad a.e $$

Note that this result is almost trivial is $f$ is continuous!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ what is $\frac{d\lambda_{f,ac}}{d \lambda}$ and why $\frac{d\lambda_{f}}{d \lambda}=\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{\lambda_{f}(B(x,r)}{\lambda(B(x,r))}$? $\endgroup$ – Filburt Feb 11 '17 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ The first one is the absolutely continuous part of the lebesgue's decomposition of $\lambda_{f}$. The second question is a detail I omitted, you're right, editing the answer soon. $\endgroup$ – GaC Feb 11 '17 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ Reviewed the answer: I guess the Lebesgue's decomposition is not necessary if we deal with lebesgue measure, removed it and added details on the connection between measure derivation and Radon-Nikodym derivative. $\endgroup$ – GaC Feb 11 '17 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_differentiation_theorem for Lebesgue's differentiation, unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a page dedicated to derivation of measure, if you're interested I can link some other pages! $\endgroup$ – GaC Feb 11 '17 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ We are supposed to not use this kind of result (not presented yet). But I'll take a look at this theorem! $\endgroup$ – Filburt Feb 11 '17 at 15:04
1
$\begingroup$

Since $f$ is nondecreasing, $f' \ge 0$ so $\int_E f'$ is well-defined for measurable $E$. Also, it's enough to prove the result on some interval $[a,b]$, since, if the result holds here, we can write $E = \bigcup_k [k-1,k] \cap E = \bigcup_k E_k$ where the $E_k$'s are almost disjoint. Hence $\lambda_f(E) = \lambda_f(\bigcup_k E_k) = \sum_k \lambda_f(E_k) = \sum_k \int_{E_k} f' = \int_E f'$ by the monotone convergence theorem. So wlog we'll assume that we're working over some finite interval $[a,b]$ and hence $\lambda_f(E) < \infty$ for all measurable $E$.

First note that the collection of all finite unions of intervals $\mathcal{A}$ is an algebra and that $\int_E f' = \lambda_f(E)$ for all $E \in \mathcal{A}$ by the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Next let $\mathcal{M}$ be the collection of all sets $E$ for which the theorem holds. So $\mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{M}$.

Claim: $\mathcal{M}$ is a monotone class

To see this, consider any increasing sequence $E_1 \subset E_2 \subset ...$ in $\mathcal{M}$. Then

$\int_{\cup_n E_n} f' = \int \lim_{N \to \infty} f' 1_{\bigcup_{n=1}^N E_n} = \int \lim_{N \to \infty} f' 1_{E_N} = \lim_{N \to \infty} \int f' 1_{E_N} $

by the monotone convergence theorem. The last integral is just $\lambda_f (E_N)$ because $E_N \in \mathcal{M}$ and $\lambda_f(E_N) \to \lambda_f (\bigcup_n E_n)$ by the continuity of measures.

So $\bigcup_n E_n \in \mathcal{M}$.

Next if $E_1 \supset E_2 \supset...$ is in$\mathcal{M}$ then $\lambda_f(E_1) < \infty$. By the continuity of measures,

$\lambda(\bigcap_n E_n) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \lambda_f(E_n) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \int_{E_n} f' = \lim_{n \to \infty} \int f' 1_{E_n}$

Since $1_{E_n} \to 1_{\bigcap_n E_n}$ as $n \to \infty$, the dominated convergence theorem shows that the last limit is just $\int_{\bigcap E_n} f'$.

So we have that $\mathcal{M}$ is closed under monotone countable unions and monotone countable intersections. Hence $\mathcal{M}$ is a monotone class.

By the monotone class theorem, the smallest monotone class containing $\mathcal{A}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra. Hence the Borel sigma algebra is in $\mathcal{M}$ and so we're done.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $f'$ need not to be in $L^1$, because the measures need not to be finite (in fact, they aren't). But maybe you can reduce the problem to a compact interval and then extend to the real line. I will take a look at your answer. $\endgroup$ – Filburt Feb 11 '17 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ Correct, $f$ need not be in $L^1$. What does $\int_{\mathbb{R}} x$ mean? It's not defined. $\endgroup$ – guest Feb 11 '17 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ Oh I see, you're assuming that $f'$ is not decreasing so that $f'$ is nonnegative everywhere. Then the above works similarly. $\endgroup$ – guest Feb 11 '17 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ yeap, you got it $\endgroup$ – Filburt Feb 11 '17 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ So use the above and replace "dominated" with "monotone" where appropriate. $\endgroup$ – guest Feb 11 '17 at 15:42

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.