I have the following question about the meaning of the total variation measure. If $(X,\mathcal{A})$ is a measurable space and $\nu$ is a signed measure, the total variation of $\nu$ is defined as $|\nu|=\nu^++\nu^-$ and this gives us an intuition that $|\nu|$ measures "how much charge" has been put on a set, no matter that some of it is positive and some of it is negative, excluding one another. Now if $\mu=\mu_1+i\mu_2$ is a complex measure with $\mu_1, \mu_2$ being signed finite measures, the total variation of $\mu$ is defined as follows:$$|\mu|(E)=\sup\{\sum_{j=1}^{n}|\mu(E_j)|: (E_j)_{j=1}^{n}\text{are disjoint and in } \mathcal{A}, \bigcup_{j=1}^{n}E_j=E\}$$

My intuition would be to define $|\mu|$ as $|\mu_1|+|\mu_2|$, a measure that is able to count the total charge that has been assigned to a set by $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ both. If someone could explain the reasoning behind the complex total variation definition, I would be grateful.


The problem is that $|\cdot|$ is not additive. Consider the complex measure $$ \mu=(a+ib)\delta.$$ Whatever the definition of $|\mu|$ is, I expect that, in this case, it should boil down to $|\mu|=\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$. With your expected definition $|\mu|:=|\mu_1|+|\mu_2|$, however, we would get $|\mu|=|a|+|b|$.

This example might suggest the definition $|\mu|:= \sqrt{ |\mu_1|^2+|\mu_2|^2}.$ This is not good either. If $\mu=(a+ib)\delta_x + (c+id)\delta_y$, with $x\ne y$, then we expect $$ |\mu|=\sqrt{a^2+b^2}+\sqrt{c^2+d^2}.$$ With the above definition we would instead have $|\mu|=\sqrt{(a+c)^2+(b+d)^2}$.


I do not know exactly how the answer needs to be, but I asked the following question in the community:

Is it possible to display an example where a set E is written as two different partitions that generate different sums? that is, it's possible to write $ E = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^{\infty} E_i = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^{\infty} F_i $, where $ \{ {E}_i \}_{i \in \mathbb N} $ and $ \{ {F}_i \}_{i \in \mathbb N} $ are different partitions of $ E $ such that

$ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} |\mu (E_i)| \neq \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} |\mu (F_i)| $?

the user user284331 displays the following counterexample for me:

With $\mu(A)=\displaystyle\int_{A}x^{3}dx$, we compute that $\mu([0,1])=1/4$, $\mu([-1,0))=-1/4$, $\mu([1/2,1])=15/64$, $\mu([-1,1/2))=-15/64$.

I believe it is for this reason that the definition of total variation behaves this way, but I am not totally sure.

  • $\begingroup$ Where do complex measures enter, in your answer? $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro Nov 4 '17 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ The definition of total variation of a complex measure $\mu $, where $ (X, \mathfrak M, \mu ) $ is a measure space is $ |\mu|(E) := sup\{ \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} |\mu (E_i)| \} $ for all $ \{ {E}_i \}_{i \in \mathbb N} $ partition of $ E $. $\endgroup$ – Luiz Collovini Nov 4 '17 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ this is equivalent to the definition you displayed. $\endgroup$ – Luiz Collovini Nov 4 '17 at 12:11

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.