Can someone confirm the result of this exercise? Im not sure if I had overlook something. Thank you.

Calculate $\mu_F(\{a\})$ where $\mu_F$ is the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure induced by a measuring-generating function $F$.

Context: here $F:\Bbb R\to\Bbb R$ is increasing and left-continuous and we set $$\nu_F([a,b)):=\begin{cases}F(b)-F(a),&b>a\\0,&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}\tag1$$

Then the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure induced by $F$ is defined by

$$\mu_F(A):=\inf\left\{\sum_{k=1}^\infty\nu_F([a_k,b_k)):A\subset\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty[a_k,b_k)\right\}\tag2$$ for some measurable $A\subset\Bbb R$ and any countable collection of left-closed intervals $[a_k,b_k)$.

Note that for any chosen $m\in\Bbb N$ then $C_m:=\left\{\big[a-\frac1n,a-\frac1{n+1}\big):n\in\Bbb N_{\ge m}\right\}$ is a cover of $\{a\}$ because $\bigcup C_m=[a-1/m,a]$. Then we find that $$ \sum_{k=m}^\infty\nu_F\left(\Big[a-1/k,a-\frac1{k+1}\Big)\right)=\sum_{k=m}^\infty \left(F\Big(a-\frac1{n+1}\Big)-F\Big(a-\frac1n\Big)\right)\\ =\lim_{n\to\infty}F(a-1/n)-F(a-1/m)=F(a)-F(a-1/m)\tag3 $$ where in the last limit we used the left-continuity of $F$. Thus $$ \mu_F(\{a\})\le\inf\left\{\sum_{k=m}^\infty\nu_F(I_m):I_m\in C_m,\, m\in\Bbb N\right\}\\=\inf\Big\{F(a)-F(a-1/m): m\in\Bbb N\Big\}=0\tag4 $$ where we used again the left continuity of $F$, that is, for each $\epsilon>0$ there is a $N\in\Bbb N$ such that $F(a)-F(a-1/n)<\epsilon$ for all $n\ge N$. Because the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure is non-negative then we conclude that $\mu_F(\{a\})=0$.


That seems awfully complicated. Just do

$$\begin{align}\mu_F(\{a\}) &= \mu_F\left(\bigcap_{n\geq 1}[a,a+1/n[\right) \\ &=\lim_{n\to+\infty}\mu_F ([a,a+1/n [) \\ &= \lim_{n\to +\infty} F(a+1/n) - F(a) \\ &= F(a^+)-F(a), \end{align} $$which need not be zero if $F$ has a jump discontinuity at $a$.

  • $\begingroup$ but this cannot be correct if my result is correct. Moreover: you had assume equality at first instead of inequality, how you justify that? I did this approach before but I found the other that I had written above more stronger. $\endgroup$
    – Masacroso
    May 11 '18 at 2:16
  • $\begingroup$ "Dualize" exercise 28 in page 39 of Folland's Real Analysis book (second edition) and you get my result. I'll look at your work more carefully to see if I find any mistake. $\endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    May 11 '18 at 2:23
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. $C_m$ is not a cover of $\{a\}$. This would mean that there is a certain $n\geq m$ such that $$a-\frac{1}{n}\leq a \color{red}{<} a -\frac{1}{n+1}, $$but this is impossible. It is not true that $\bigcup C_m = [a-1/m,a]$. $\endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    May 11 '18 at 2:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ok, I see, my mistake was write $\bigcup C_m=[a-1/m,a]$ instead of the correct one $\bigcup C_m=[a-1/m,a)$. Thank you for your time. $\endgroup$
    – Masacroso
    May 11 '18 at 2:35
  • $\begingroup$ @IvoTerek If $\mu_F(A) > 0$ then can we say that $A$ must have open intervals then? $\endgroup$
    – user209663
    Nov 27 '21 at 22:14

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.