0
$\begingroup$

Consider a measure space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mu)$ and two integrable, measurable functions

$$f,g: \Omega \to [-\infty, + \infty]$$

I.e., $$\int fd\mu, \int g d \mu \in \mathbb{R}$$

I proved that in this case $$\mu\{f= \pm \infty\} = 0 = \mu\{g= \pm \infty\}$$

My book then gives the following remark:

For every $\alpha, \beta \in \mathbb{R}$, the function $\alpha f + \beta g$ is defined $\mu$-almost everywhere (the function is not defined when we encounter something of the form $+ \infty - (+ \infty), -\infty + (+ \infty))$

We formally define this expression to be $0$ in that case.

My book then proves that $\alpha f + \beta g$ is integrable then and that $$\int (\alpha f + \beta g) d \mu = \alpha \int f d\mu + \beta \int g d\mu$$

Question: How can I show that the function $\alpha f + \beta g$ is $\mathcal{F}$-measurable? It makes intuitive sense, because we 'ruin' the measurability in a set of measure $0$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Essentially we need to show that the sum $f+g$ of measurable functions (with additional agreement $\pm\infty+\mp\infty=0$) is measurable. The proof is a slight modification of the standard proof for finite-valued functions. Namely, let $F_{\pm\infty}=\{x : f(x) = \pm\infty\}$ and similarly for $g$. Then for $a\in\mathbb{R}$ $$\{x : f(x) + g(x) < a\} = I(a) \cup \bigcup_{r\in\mathbb{Q}}\big(\{x : f(x) < r\} \cap \{x : g(x) < a - r\}\big),$$ where $I(a) = (F_{+\infty}\cap G_{-\infty})\cup(F_{-\infty}\cap G_{+\infty})$ if $a > 0$ and $I(a) = \varnothing$ otherwise. All the sets on the right-hand side are measurable, thus the one on the left-hand side is measurable too.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Mustnt it be a/2 in the second line? $\endgroup$ – user370967 Oct 21 '18 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ Fixed the mess... $\endgroup$ – metamorphy Oct 21 '18 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ I think your answer is wrong. The left set isn't contained in the right set. To see this,take $a >0$, $x$ s.t. $f(x) = \infty$ and $g(x) = -\infty$. Then there is no rational $r$ such that $f(x) < r$. $\endgroup$ – user370967 Oct 21 '18 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ Bad mood... tried to fill the (still routine technical) details in. Feel free to fix me further ;) $\endgroup$ – metamorphy Oct 21 '18 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ It's late here so I will get back to you soon! Thanks for fixing. It looks promising. $\endgroup$ – user370967 Oct 21 '18 at 20:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy