1
$\begingroup$

According to wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_measure

a driscrite measure is defined in the following way:

Let's consider a real line $\mathbb{R}$. For some (possibly finite) sequences $s_{1}, s_{2}, \dots$ and $a_{1}, a_{2}, \dots$, s.t. $a_{i}>0$ and $\sum_{i}a_{i} = 1$, let $$ \begin{equation} \delta_{s_i}(X)=\begin{cases} 1, & \text{if $s_{i}\in X$}\\ 0, & \text{if $s_{i}\not\in X$} \end{cases} \end{equation} $$ for any Lebesgue measurable set $X$. Then $$ \mu = \sum_{i}a_{i}\delta_{s_i} $$ is the discrete measure on $\mathbb{R}$.

The question: why do we need Lebesgue measurability?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

You don't. Such a measure makes sense on any $\sigma$-algebra.

The authors of that page probably have in mind a context where one is studying some larger class of measures on the Lebesgue $\sigma$-algebra (or perhaps the Borel $\sigma$-algebra), and where one wants to say something about which measures in that class are discrete.

Note that they discuss a more general setting further down - they want to call a measure $\mu$ discrete with respect to $\nu$ only when it is of the form you describe, and all the singletons $\{s_i\}$ are $\nu$-null. So this part requires saying something about the $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma$ on which $\nu$ is defined. The measure $\mu$ will still make sense and behave well for sets $X$ which are not $\Sigma$-measurable, but in this context we are just not interested in such sets.

$\endgroup$

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.