I'm a bit confused about the definition of a Lebesgue measurable function. On one hand we have the definition specific to Lebesgue measure:

$f$ is Lebesgue measurable if for every open set U in $ \mathbb{R} $, $ f^{-1}$(U) is Lebesgue-measurable.

On the other hand we have the general definition of a measurable function:

$f:(X,\Sigma)\rightarrow (Y,\Delta)$ is measurable if for every measurable set $A$ (i.e. $A \in \Delta$), $f^{-1}(A) \in \Sigma$.

Consider the second definition above, in the measure space $(\mathbb{R},\Sigma)$ where $\Sigma$ is the set of Lebesgue-measurable sets. Let $m$ denote the Lebesgue measure. So a Lebesgue-measurable function is not necessarily $m$-measurable, since not every Lebesgue-measurable set is open/Borel?

Any inputs are highly appreciated.

  • $\begingroup$ I think you mean $f^{-1}(A)\in\Sigma$ whenever $A\in\Delta$. $\endgroup$ – Aweygan Mar 3 '17 at 0:49
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Aweygan - I've changed the question to fix that. $\endgroup$ – Simon Li Mar 3 '17 at 0:50

One problem with the "general definition" is that a continuous function might not be measurable. There is, for example, a continuous injective function $f$ from $\mathbb R$ to $\mathbb R$ that is a homeomorphism from a closed set $S$ of positive measure to the Cantor set $E$ (which has measure $0$). For any $V \subseteq S$, $V = f^{-1}(f(V))$, but $f(V) \subseteq E$ has measure $0$ and is therefore measurable. Take a non-measurable subset $V$ of $S$ (e.g. the intersection of $S$ with a Bernstein set) and conclude that $f$ is not measurable.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.