2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to compile a proof of the uniqueness of Haar measure. Usually this is done by multiple-integral mumbo-jumbo, abusing left and right invariance of two potential measures and invoking Fubini's Theorem.

However I have only been able to find a proof of Fubini's Theorem for $\sigma$-finite measure spaces. A locally compact group is only $\sigma$-finite when it has a countable number of components. So in general this version of the proof cannot be applied. In Halmos' Measure Theory he says that a Borel Measure (Which might assume the space is locally compact) is necessarily $\sigma$-finite. But this is included as an excercise, and I have no idea how to prove it. Is it true at all?

So I am looking either for a proof of that, which would let me use the usual Fubini Theorem in $\sigma$-finite spaces -- or a separate proof of Fubini for LC Borel measures, when there is no assumption of $\sigma$-finiteness.

Any advice?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ A locally compact, Hausdorff, second countable space is $\sigma$-compact. Perhaps those assumptions are implicit in Halmos' book. $\endgroup$ – Prahlad Vaidyanathan Nov 25 '13 at 13:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "In Halmos' Measure Theory he says that a Borel Measure (Which might assume the space is locally compact) is necessarily $\sigma$-finite"; regular Borel measure, probably. The counting measure on your favourite uncountable locally compact space is not $\sigma$-finite. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Nov 25 '13 at 13:59
2
$\begingroup$

Halmos's definition of Borel set differs from the one now in common use. While the common definition is the smallest $\sigma$-algebra generated by the open sets (equivalently by the closed sets), his is the smallest $\sigma$-ring (i.e. not including complements) generated by the compact sets (page 219).

Halmos's definition of $\sigma$-finiteness (page 31) for measures is also not equivalent to the $\sigma$-algebraic definition. A measure $\mu$ on a $\sigma$-ring $\mathcal{R}$ is $\sigma$-finite if for all $S \in \mathcal{R}$, $S$ is the union of a sequence of sets of finite measure. This does not imply that the whole space be $\sigma$-finite in the usual sense, as the whole space might not be an element of $\mathcal{R}$.

Under this definition, counting measure on the Borel sets of an uncountable discrete is $\sigma$-finite (by Halmos's definition, the Borel sets are exactly the countable subsets), and is hence not a counterexample.

I hope that this information is enough to complete the exercise.

$\endgroup$

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.