Problem: Let $\newcommand{\IR}{\mathbb{R}}\newcommand{\IL}{\mathcal{L}}\phi: \IR \times \IR^{n} \to \IR^n$ be $\IL^{n+1}$-measurable and satisfy for every $\IL^{n}$-nullset $A \subset \IR^n$ and $\IL^{1}$-almost every $t \in \IR$ $$ \IL^n(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in A\}) = 0. $$ Show that then for all $\IL^{n+1}$-nullset $M \subset \IR^{n+1}$ it holds that $$ \int \chi_M(t,\phi(t,x)) d\IL^{n+1} = 0. $$

Remark: The last statement can be written as $(\operatorname{id},\phi)_\#\IL^{n+1} \ll \IL^{n+1}$ where we denote by $f_\#\mu$ the pushforward measure of $\mu$ under $f$.

What I tried so far: I tried to use some standard Fubini argument. By setting $$ M_t = \{x: (t,x) \in M\} $$ we know by Fubini that, for $\IL^{1}$-almost every $t \in \IR$, we have $\IL^{n}(M_t)=0$. And thus, for each of these $t$, we get for $\IL^{1}$-almost every $s \in \IR$ $$ \IL^n(\{x: \phi(s,x) \in M_t\}) = 0. $$ But I want to know something about the diagonal, i.e. $s=t$. I need that for $\IL^{1}$-almost every $t \in \IR$ we have $\IL^n(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in M_t\}) = 0$. Obviously we get this whenever $M$ can be written as $I \times M'$ for some $I \subset \IR$ and some $M' \subset \IR^n$. Anyhow, I don't know how this could help in getting the statement for general sets $M$.


If we define $\phi_t(x)=\phi(t,x)$ then your condition: $$ \IL^n(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in A\}) = 0. $$ is equivalent to $(\phi_t)_\#\IL^{n} \ll \IL^{n}$ for almost every t. Let $I=\pi_1(M)$ the projection on the first variable, then we see the following: \begin{equation} \begin{split} (\operatorname{id},\phi)_\#\IL^{n+1}(M) &=\int_M\mathrm{d}\left((\operatorname{id},\phi)_\#\IL^{n+1}\right) =\int \chi_M(t,\phi(t,x)) \,\mathrm{d}\IL^{n+1}\\ &=\int \chi_M(t,\phi_t(x)) \,\mathrm{d}\IL^{n+1} =\int_{I}\int\chi_M(t,\phi_t(x))\,\mathrm{d}\IL^n(x)\,\mathrm{d}\IL(t)\\ &=\int_{I}\int\chi_{M_t}(\phi_t(x))\,\mathrm{d}\IL^n(x)\,\mathrm{d}\IL(t)\\ &=\int_{I}\int_{M_t}\,\mathrm{d}((\phi_t)_\#\IL^n(x))\,\mathrm{d}\IL(t) \end{split} \end{equation} Then we have that $(\operatorname{id},\phi)_\#\IL^{n+1}=\IL^1\otimes(\phi)_\#\IL^n\ll\IL^1\otimes\IL^n=\IL^{n+1}$ and we conlcude.

  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thanks. As you can see from my answer, I confused myself with the formulation. When thinking about this problem, I always assumed that the set of $t$s for which the condition holds depends on the set $A$. And this obviously wouldn't imply $(\phi_t)_\#\IL^{n} \ll \IL^{n}$. $\endgroup$ – thomas Jul 26 '14 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ It doesn't really matter because: $$0=\IL^n(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in A\})=\IL^n(\phi_t^{-1}(A))$$ And so your condition could be written as: $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\IL^n(\{x\,:\,\phi(t,x)\in A\})\,\mathrm{d}t =\int_{\mathbb{R}}(\phi_t)_\#\IL^n(A)\,\mathrm{d}t=0 $$ So we should be able to use the same argument. $\endgroup$ – Lolman Jul 26 '14 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand the problem at all. It doesn't matter once you fix the null set $A$. $\endgroup$ – Lolman Jul 26 '14 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, for fixed $A$ everything is fine. But actually we're considering a family of null sets $M_t$. So we're interested in the expression $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}(\phi_t)_\#\mathcal{L}^n(M_t)dt.$$ This is fundamentally different from what you say. $\endgroup$ – thomas Jul 26 '14 at 19:32

The Question is indeed not well-posed. The problem is in the first line already. It should be formulated as follows to be precise:

Let $\newcommand{\IR}{\mathbb{R}}\newcommand{\IL}{\mathcal{L}}\phi: \IR \times \IR^{n} \to \IR^n$ be $\IL^{n+1}$-measurable. Suppose there exists an $\IL^{1}$-nullset $N$ such that for all $t \in \IR\setminus N$ it holds that $$ \IL^{n}(A) = 0 \qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad \IL^n(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in A\}) = 0. $$

Using this formulation, the statement is true. And the proof is an easy application of Fubini: $$ \begin{aligned} \int \chi_M(t,\phi(t,x)) d\IL^{n+1} &= \int_{\IR\setminus N} \int_{\IR^n} \chi_{M_t}(\phi(t,x)) d\IL^{n}(x)d\IL^{1}(t) \\ &= \int_{\IR\setminus N} \IL^{n}(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in M_t\})d\IL^{1}(t) = 0. \end{aligned} $$

If, however, we formulate the first two sentences in a slightly different manner, we get a completely different statement. I even presume that it's wrong under these assumptions:

Let $\newcommand{\IR}{\mathbb{R}}\newcommand{\IL}{\mathcal{L}}\phi: \IR \times \IR^{n} \to \IR^n$ be $\IL^{n+1}$-measurable. Suppose that for every $\IL^{n}$-nullset $A$ there exists an $\IL^{1}$-nullset $N_\phi(A)$ such that $$ t \not\in N_\phi(A) \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \IL^n(\{x: \phi(t,x) \in A\}) = 0. $$

If somebody can disprove (or prove) the assertion under this weaker assumption, I would be glad to know the counterexample (or the proof).


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.