I'm reading below Fubini's theorem in page 3 of this lecture note.

Let $(X, \mathcal{A}, \mu)$ and $(Y, \mathcal{B}, \nu)$ be complete measure spaces, let $\gamma$ be the product outer measure on $X \times Y$ constructed above, and suppose that $f: X \times Y \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $\gamma$-integrable. Then

(i) $f(x, y)$ is a $\mu$-integrable function of $x$ for $\nu$-a.e. $y \in Y$;

(ii) $\int_{X} f(x, y) d \mu(x)$ is a $\nu$-integrable function of y;

(iii) $\int_{Y}\left(\int_{X} f(x, y) d \mu(x)\right) d \nu(y)=\int_{X \times Y} f(x, y) d \gamma$.

In the proof,

  • $C$ is a $\gamma$-measurable set of finite measure.

  • For all $j$, $\left\{A_{i}^{j} \times B_{i}^{j}\mid i=1,2, \ldots\right\}$ is pairwise disjoint family of $\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}$ rectangles.

  • $E=\cap_{j}\left(\cup_{i} A_{i}^{j} \times B_{i}^{j}\right) \setminus C$.

In my understanding, $E = \left [\cap_{j}\left(\cup_{i} A_{i}^{j} \times B_{i}^{j}\right) \right] \cap C^c$ is $\gamma$-measurable. Hence the $y$-slice $E_y$ of $E$ defined by $$E_y \triangleq \{x \in X \mid (x, y) \in E\}$$ is also measurable by the lemma in this question. I mean by this lemma that we don't need the hypothesis of measure completeness to obtain the measurability of $E_y$.

However, the author said that

But $\left.E \subset \cap\left(\cup_{i} E_{i}^{j} \times F_{i}^{j}\right)\right)$ and $\nu$ is a complete measure, so the slice $\{x:(x, y) \in E\}$ is also in $\mathcal{A}$ and also has $\mu$-measure zero for $\nu$-a.e. $y \in E$.

So they mean the measure completeness is necessary for the slice $E_y$ to be measurable.

Could you please elaborate on my confusion?


1 Answer 1


It is because $\gamma$ is not the product measure $\mu \times \nu$. Rather, $\gamma = \overline{\mu \times \nu}$, that is, $\gamma$ is the completion of the product measure $\mu \times \nu$. The measure space you are working with is $(X \times Y, \overline{\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{B}}, \overline{\mu \times \nu})$.

It is not always the case that $E \in \overline{\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{B}} \implies E_y \in \mathcal{A}$. For example, take $X = Y = [0, 1]$ with Lebesgue measure $m_1$ and Lebesgue sigma-algebra $L$. Let $S \subset [0, 1]$ be a set which is not Lebesgue-measurable. Then $E = S \times \{0\}$ is Lebesgue-measurable with $m_2(E) = 0$ since $S \times \{0\} \subset [0, 1] \times \{0\} \in L \otimes L$ and $m_2([0, 1] \times \{0\}) = 0$. However, $E_{0} = S$ is not Lebesgue-measurable.


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.