I'm having difficulties verifying a remark in Raymond Ryan's treatment of the Bochner Integral.

$\bf{\text{Remark:}}$ If $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite, and $(f_{n})_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a sequence of $\mu$-measurable functions which converges to $f$ almost everywhere, then $f$ is $\mu$-measurable.

$\bf{\text{Edit:}}$ At this point I am currently looking for an authoritative answer on what the hypothesis of this remark should be, given the comments below.


Let $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure space, and $X$ be a Banach space.

A function $f:\Omega\to X$ is simple if it assumes only finitely many values. That is, there exists subsets $E_{1}, ... , E_{n}$ of $\Omega$ and scalars $x_{1}, ... , x_{n}\in X$ such that $f = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\chi_{E_{i}}x_{i}$.

If the sets $E_{i}$ can be chosen from $\Sigma$, then $f$ is $\mu$-measurable simple.

A function $f:\Omega\to X$ is $\mu$-measurable if it is the limit of a sequence of $\mu$-measurable simple functions (almost everywhere).

A function $f:\Omega\to X$ is $\mu$-essentially separately valued if there exists $E\in \Sigma$ such that $\mu(\Omega\backslash E) = 0$ and $f(E)\subset Y$ for some separable subspace $Y$ of $X$.

These are the immediately preceding results (which may or may not be useful).

$\bf{\text{Lemma:}}$ Let $\mu$ be $\sigma$-finite. $f:\Omega\to X$ is $\mu$-measurable if and only if $\chi_{E}f$ is $\mu$-measurable for every $E\in \Sigma$, $\mu(E) < \infty$.

Proof (My previous question): Fact about measurable functions defined on $\sigma$-finite measure spaces.

$\bf{\text{(Pettis Measurability Theorem)}}$ Let $\mu$ be a $\sigma$-finite measure. The following are equivalent for $f:\Omega\to X$.

(i) $f$ is $\mu$-measurable.

(ii) $f$ is weakly $\mu$-measurable and $\mu$-essentially separately valued.

(iii) $f$ is Borel measurable and $\mu$-essentially separately valued.

Sorry for not having much of a start yet. My ideas consisted of trying to adapt the solution given as an answer to my previous question: Fact about measurable functions defined on $\sigma$-finite measure spaces. but sadly went nowhere. I'm just looking for a hint not a full solution if possible.

$\bf{\text{Regarding My Issues Below:}}$

In Norbert's proof:

Case (1): The functions $f_{n}$ are each $\mu$-measurable simple as they can be written as $f_{n} = \chi_{\phi}$ and $\phi\in\Sigma$. Since $f_{n}\to\chi_{F}$ at every point outside of $F$, then by definition, $\chi_{F}$ is $\mu$-measurable. So I don't think a contradiction exists here.

Case (2): Before completeness is invoked, we have that since $f_{n}$ is $\mu$-measurable, $x^{*}\circ f_{n}$ is a $\mu$-measurable scalar valued function on $E$ for every $x^{*}\in X^{*}$. Therefore it is concluded that $x^{*}\circ f$ is a $\mu$-measurable scalar valued function on $E$ for every $x^{*}\in X^{*}$. I cannot manage to prove the details on this last step; it seems to actually require the remark which is to be proved?

$\bf{\text{Follow Up:}}$ I think I have found the heart of the matter, which I have posted as a separate question: Contradiction achieved with the Pettis Measurability Theorem?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ With the assumption that the sigma-algebra is complete, this is trivial. Without this assumption this is wrong. $\endgroup$ – Did Sep 7 '13 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ This appears as an exercise in Royden in section 11.3 (the case where $X = \mathbb{R}$). Completeness is given as a hypothesis and $\sigma$-finiteness is not given. $\endgroup$ – roo Sep 7 '13 at 19:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As your post stands, I'm having trouble figuring out what your question is. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Sep 7 '13 at 22:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you want to learn Bochner Integral, look at Analysis III by Herbert Amann and Joachim Escher. They give a nice introduction. $\endgroup$ – Vishal Gupta Sep 10 '13 at 13:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah. It does not, but I said it gives an introduction to Bochner Integral to get one started. $\endgroup$ – Vishal Gupta Sep 10 '13 at 15:05

Let $X$ be a Banach space and $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a measure space. By $L_0(\Omega,\mu, X)$ we denote the linear space of $X$-valued measurable functions.

1) This is wrong counterexample, because anotherr definiton of measurability should ne used. If $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ is not complete the result is not true. Indeed the measure is not complete we have $E\in\Sigma$ and $F\subset E$ such that $F\notin \Sigma$ and $\mu(E)=0$. Let $f_n(\omega)=0$ for all $\omega\in\Omega$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$, then $f_n\to\chi_F$ a.e, $\{f_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\subset L_0(\Omega,\mu,\mathbb{C})$ but $\chi_F\notin L_0(\Omega,\mu,\mathbb{C})$.

2) If $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ is complete we use Pettis measurability theorem. By assumption we have $E\in\Sigma$ such that $f(\omega)=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} f_n(\omega)$ for all $\omega\in E$ and $\mu(\Omega\setminus E)=0$. Take arbitrary $x^*\in X^*$, then for all $\omega\in E$ we have $x^*(f(\omega))=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} x^*(f_n(\omega))$. Since $f_n\in L_0(\Omega,\mu,X)$, then by Pettis measrability theorem $x^*\circ f_n$ is scalar valued measurable function. Since $x^*\circ f$ is limit on $E$ of measurable scalar valued functions $x^*\circ f_n$, then $x^*\circ f$ is scalar valued measurable on $E$ function. Since $\mu(\Omega\setminus E)=0$ and measure is complete then $x^*\circ f$ is scalar valued measurable on $\Omega$. Since $x^*$ is arbitrary $f$ is weakly $\mu$-measurable.

Since $f_n\in L_0(\Omega,\mu,X)$, then by Pettis measurability theorem $f_n$ is separably valued, i.e. there exist countable $S_n\subset X$, $E_n\in \Sigma$ such that $f_n(E_n)\subset \operatorname{cl}(S_n)$ and $\mu(\Omega\setminus E_n)=0$. Define $E_0=(\bigcap E_n)\cap E\in \Sigma$, then $\mu(\Omega\setminus E_0)=0$. Consider countable set $S=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} S_n$, then $f_n(E_0)\subset \operatorname{cl}(S_n)\subset \operatorname{cl}(S)$ and $\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} f_n(E_0)\subset \operatorname{cl}(S)$. Recall $f(\omega)=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} f_n(\omega)$ for all $\omega\in E$. Since $E_0\subset E$ we conclude that each point in $f(E_0)$ is limit of some sequence in $\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} f_n(E_0)$. In other words $f(E_0)\subset \operatorname{cl}(\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}} f_n(E_0))$. Now we have $f(E_0)\subset \operatorname{cl}(\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}f_n(E_0))\subset$$\subset \operatorname{cl}(\operatorname{cl}(S))=\operatorname{cl}(S)$. Since $S$ is countable, $f(E_0)$ is separable. Since $\mu(\Omega\setminus E_0)=0$, then $f$ is separably valued.

Since $f$ is weakly measurable and separably valued by Pettis measurability theorem it is $\mu$ measurable, i.e. $f\in L_0(\Omega,\mu,X)$.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ Excellent answer. Thanks very much! $\endgroup$ – roo Sep 10 '13 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ For case (1), you construct a sequence $f_{n}$ of $\mu$-measurable functions which converges almost everywhere to $\chi_{F}$, and arrive at a contradiction because $\chi_{F}$ is not $\mu$-measurable. But since each $f_{n}$ is in fact $\mu$-measurable simple, wouldn't that mean $\chi_{F}$ is $\mu$-measurable? $\endgroup$ – roo Sep 10 '13 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ Note $f_n\to\chi_F$ not eveshere on $\Omega$. In fact $f_n\to\chi_F$ a.e. on $\Omega$. This doesn't give us a chance to prove measrabilty of $\chi_F$. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Sep 10 '13 at 20:43
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused, that is the definition Ryan gives of a $\mu$-measurable function: $f$ is $\mu$-measurable if $f$ is the almost everywhere limit of a sequence of $\mu$-measurable simple functions. $\endgroup$ – roo Sep 12 '13 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that completeness is used to ensure that the set of bad points (non-convergence) is measurable. When we say that something happens almost everywhere, are we requiring that the set of points for which it does not happen is measurable of measure $0$? or just that it be of measure $0$? $\endgroup$ – roo Sep 12 '13 at 14:10

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.