I am reading some notes and believe this is a typo:

'We would like an invariant measure $\mu$ on $X=[0,1]$ which is absolutely continuous wrt Lebesgue measure, so that a result which is true for $\mu$-a.e point will be true for Lebesgue-a.e point.'

I believe the typo is the second part, surely it should be a 'result which is true for Leb-a.e. point is true for $\mu$-a.e point'? Since if Leb$(P)=1$, then Leb$(X\setminus P)=0$ so that $\mu(X\setminus P)=0$, ie $\mu(P)=1$.

Unless am I missing something? Could someone please correct me if I am mistaken? Thanks!

| cite | improve this question | | | | |

You're right, somebody mixed up the order.

If $\mu \ll \nu$, then $\nu$-a.e. implies $\mu$-a.e. (since the exceptional set is $\nu$-null and thus by absolute continuity $\mu$-null), but not the other way round. Whether it was intended that the Lebesgue measure should be absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ or something else, I can't guess.

| 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.