I've been reading through Folland's section on outer measures and premeasures, and I really want to understand the bigger picture as I feel as if though I'm losing sight of the bigger picture. My main problem is with Theorem 1.14 and its proof but first I introduce some important concepts with my questions on them.

1.11 Carathéodory's Theorem: If $\mu^*$ is an outer measure on X, the collection $M$ of $\mu^*$ measurable sets is a $\sigma$ algebra, and the restriction of $\mu^*$ to $M$ is a complete measure.

$\textbf{My questions: Does this mean on M, $\mu^*$ is countably additive}$ $\textbf{so that it is indeed a measure?}$ $\textbf{Are all subsets of null sets also contained in M, to be complete?}$ $\textbf{Folland to prove completeness shows that if $\mu^{*}(A)=0,\mbox{then A $\in$ M}$, but}$ $\textbf{shouldn't he show that subsets of null sets are contained in M, not just that null sets are}$ $\textbf{are contained in M?}$ This is what he does:

enter image description here

1.13: If $\mu_0$ is a premeasure on $A \subset P(X)$, where $A$ is an algebra and $u^*$ is defined by: $u^{*}(E)=\mbox{inf}${$\sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j): A_j\in A, E \subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{\infty}A_j $}, then:

a. $\mu^{*}|_A=\mu_0$

b. every set in $A$ is $\mu^{*}$ measurable.

Does 1.13a just simply mean mean that on A for E $\subset A,u^*{E}=\mu_0(E)$?

Theorem 1.14: Let $A \subset P(X)$ be an algebra, $\mu_0$ a premeasure on $A$, and $M$, the $\sigma-algebra$ generated by $A$. There exists a measure $\mu$ on $M$ whose restriction to $A$ is $\mu_0$-namely,$\mu|_M=\mu^{*}$, where $\mu^{*}$ is given by

$u^{*}(E)=\mbox{inf}${$\sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j): A_j\in A, E \subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{\infty}A_j $}. If $\upsilon$ is another measure on $M$ that extends $u_0$, then $\upsilon \leq \mu(E)$ for all $E \in M$, with equality when $\mu(E)<\infty$. If $\mu_0$ is $\sigma-finite$, then $\mu$ is the unique extension of $\mu_0$ to a measure on $M$. Image of proof: enter image description here

$\textbf{My questions: Does this mean on M, $\mu(E)=\mu^{*}(E)$ for $E \subset M$?}$ $\textbf{My questions: Does this mean on A, $\mu(E)=\mu_0(E)=\mu^{*}(E)$ for $E \subset A$?}$

$\textbf{Does $\upsilon$, (a measure on M), "extending" $\mu_0$ mean that the restriction of $\upsilon$ to A is $ \mu_0$ }$? Folland never explicitly defines extension so I'm not sure what it means.

$\textbf{Finally, I'm not sure why in the proof why that $\upsilon(E) \leq \sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j) $}$, in the screenshot above implies that $\upsilon(E) \leq \mu(E)$ Where does this fact come from?

Sorry for all the questions, I just want to really understand everything. Thank you.


Your questions:

  • Does this mean on M, $\mu^*$ is countably additive? Yes the statement says that $\mu^*:M\to [0,\infty]$ is a complete measure. In particular if $E_n$ are disjoint sets in $M$, then $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\mu^*(E_n)=\mu^*\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty E_n\right)$$.
  • Are all subsets of null sets also contained in M, to be complete? Yes, let $G\subset A$, where $\mu^*(A)=0$. Since $\mu^*$ is an outer measure and $G\subset A$, you have that $0\le \mu^*(G)\le\mu^*(A)=0$ and so $\mu^*(G)=0$. Hence, by what Folland proved you get that $G\in M$.
  • My questions: Does this mean on M, $\mu(E)=\mu^{*}(E)$ for $E \subset M$? Actually this is how he defines $\mu$. He first defines $\mu^{*}$ to be $$\mu^{*}(E):=\left\{\sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j): A_j\in \mathcal{A}, E \subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{\infty}A_j\right\}$$ for every $E\in X$. Then he applies Caratheodory's theorem to conclude that $\mu^*:M\to [0,\infty]$ is a complete measure. Then he defines $\mu(E):=\mu^*(E)$ for every $E\in M$. It is just a way for him not to have to write $\mu^*\vert_M$ (the restriction of $\mu^*$ to $M$) every time.
  • Does this mean on A, $\mu(E)=\mu_0(E)=\mu^{*}(E)$ for $E \subset \mathcal{A}$? Yes. I already explained the first equality. Take $E\in \mathcal{A}$. Then you can take $A_1=E$ and $A_j=\emptyset$ for all $j\ge 2$ in the definition of $\mu^{*}(E)$ to conclude that $$\mu^{*}(E)\le \mu_0(E)+0,$$where we used the fact that $\mu^{*}(E)$ is the infimum. To prove the opposite inequality, you have to use the fact that $\mu_0$ is a premeasure and $\mathcal{A}$ an algebra, then $$\mu_0(E)\le \sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j)$$ for every sequence of sets $A_j\in \mathcal{A}$, with $E \subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{\infty}A_j$. Try to prove this. Assuming this inequality holds, then $\mu_0(E)$ is a lower bound for all such sums $\sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j)$ and so the infimum must be greater that $\mu_0(E)$, that is, $\mu_0(E)\le \mu^*(E)$. Together with the other inequality you have that $\mu^*(E)=\mu_0(E)$ for every $E \subset \mathcal{A}$.
  • Does $\upsilon$, (a measure on M), "extending" $\mu_0$ mean that the restriction of $\upsilon$ to $\mathcal{A}$ is $ \mu_0$? Yes, this is exactly the definition of extension.
  • Finally, I'm not sure why in the proof why that $\upsilon(E) \leq \sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \mu_0(A_j) $. Any measure is countably subadditive, that is, if $E,A_j\in M$ are such that $E \subset \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{\infty}A_j$, then $$\upsilon(E) \le \sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \upsilon(A_j). $$ Are you OK proving this property (you have to change the sequence $A_j$ to make it disjoint). Now if $A_j\in \mathcal{A}$ then you know that $\upsilon(A_j)=\mu_0(A_j)$ exactly because $\upsilon$ equals $\mu_0$ on $\mathcal{A}$. So you have $$\upsilon(E) \le \sum \limits_{1}^{\infty} \upsilon(A_j)=\sum \limits_{1}^{\infty}\mu_0(A_j). $$

About the completeness, even with $\mu^*(G) = 0$, we still do not know whether $G \in \mathscr{M}$ or not. So, the Theorem does not guarantee the completeness of $\mu$, and we need to somehow enlarge the domain of $\mu$ (e.g., applying Exercise 22 in Folland's book) for completion. Here, remember that $\mu$ is the restriction of $\mu^*: \mathscr{P}(X) \to [0, \infty]$ on $\mathscr{M}$.

To summarize, somehow we have to find a $\sigma$-algebra $\mathscr{\overline M} \supseteq \mathscr{M}$ that contains every $G \in \mathscr{P}(X)$ such that $\mu^*(G) = 0$.

We can construct a counter example to show $\mu$ is not necessarily complete. Applying the Theorem to a $\sigma$-algebra $\mathscr{A}$ and any incomplete measure $\mu_0$ on it (which are definitely an algebra and a premeasure, respectively). Then,

  • the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathscr{M}$ generated by $\mathscr{A}$ is equal to $\mathscr{A}$ since $\mathscr{A}$ itself is a $\sigma$-algebra;

  • $\mu = \mu^*|\mathscr{M} = \mu^*|\mathscr{A}$, hence by Proposition 1.13 in the Folland's book, $\mu = \mu_0$;

  • by the construction (i.e., $\mu = \mu_0$, $\mathscr{M} = \mathscr{A}$), the measure space $(X, \mathscr{M}, \mu)$ is the same as $(X, \mathscr{A}, \mu_0)$, so not complete.

On the other hand, if $\mu_0$ is a $\sigma$-finite premeasure, one can construct a $\sigma$-finite complete measure by applying the Theorem to obtain a $\sigma$-finite measure space $(X, \mathscr{M}, \mu)$, where $\sigma$-finiteness comes from that of $\mu_0$, and then applying Exercise 22 to obtain its completion $(X, \mathscr{\overline M}, \overline \mu)$. Such a completion is a unique extension to a complete measure space by Theorem 1.14 above and Theorem 1.9 in the Folland's book.


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.