5
$\begingroup$

I have a confusion with measurable functions. I just saw that the statement "The inverse image of a measurable set under a measurable function is measurable" is false with counter-example the function on Cantor set but I know the definition of f measurable is:

Let $f:(X,O_X)\to (Y,O_Y)$ with $O_X$ $\sigma$-algebra of $X$ and $O_Y$ $\sigma$-algebra of $Y$. $f$ said $(O_X-O_Y)$-measurable function if for all $B\in O_Y\ f^{-1}(B)\in O_X$.

But, What is the difference with "The inverse image of a measurable set under a measurable function is measurable? "

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Measurable functions from R to R use the borel sigma algebra in the codomain and the lebesgue sigma algebra in the domain. $\endgroup$ – rubikscube09 Nov 6 '18 at 3:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @rubikscube09: no, that is the definition of Lebesgue measurable functions, not measurable functions. $\endgroup$ – user10354138 Nov 6 '18 at 4:02
5
$\begingroup$

It depends what $\sigma$ algebra you are considering on the target space.

When everyone talks about measureable functions on $\mathbb R$, they mean that $\mathcal O_Y$ is the the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel sets (generated by open intervals). This means that the preimage of an open interval like $(a,b)$ is measurable, but the preimage of a Lebesgue measurable set may not be measurable.

$\endgroup$

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.