4
$\begingroup$

The following is an overly fancy way of asking a question suggested in Borel Measures: Atoms vs. Point Masses

Let $\phi$ be a property that topological spaces can have (such as "compact", "$T_1$", etc.) and let $M(\phi)$ be the statement "There exists a topological space $X$ with property $\phi$, and a nontrivial, countably additive, 0-1 valued Borel measure on $X$ which is not a point mass." (For the purposes of this question, a measure $\mu$ is a point mass if there exists $a \in X$ such that $\mu(A) = 1$ iff $a \in A$.)

For various values of $\phi$, what is the consistency strength of $M(\phi)$?

A few examples:

  • $M(\text{compact Hausdorff})$ is a theorem of ZFC (let $X = [0,\omega_1] = \omega_1+1$ with the order topology, and consider the Dieudonné measure.)

  • $M(\text{finite discrete})$ is inconsistent with ZFC.

  • $M(\text{separable metrizable})$ is also inconsistent with ZFC, as I show in this answer.

  • $M(\text{discrete})$ is implied by "there exists a measurable cardinal", and if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly, they are actually equivalent. It's known that this has greater consistency strength than ZFC but is not known to be inconsistent.

I would be particularly interested in knowing about $M(\text{metrizable})$ and $M(\text{completely metrizable})$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not entire sure if that's what you mean, but a real-valued measurable cardinal seems to be a relevant notion here. It's really a measurable cardinal in disguise. But if the continuum is real-valued measurable then there is a measure extending the Lebesgue measure which measures every subset. I suppose that by extending the co-null filter you can obtain a $0$-$1$ measure. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 24 '14 at 6:45
3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $X$ is a metric space with a two valued diffused Borel measure. Let $\mathcal{U} = \bigcup \{\mathcal{U}_n : n < \omega\}$ be a basis for $X$ where each $\mathcal{U}_n$ is a disjoint family of open sets - See here.

Let $\langle x_i : i < \kappa \rangle$ list $X$. For each $i$, let $B_i$ be a open ball around $x_i$ whose measure is zero. Let $\theta \leq \kappa$ be least such that $\bigcup \{B_i : i < \theta\}$ is not null.

For each $n$, consider the family $\mathcal{F}_n = \{U \in \mathcal{U}_n :(\exists i < \theta)(U \subseteq B_i)\}$. Each $\mathcal{F}_n$ is a disjoint family of open sets and if $\mathcal{F} = \bigcup \{\mathcal{F}_n : n < \omega\}$, then $\bigcup \mathcal{F}$ is not null. Hence for some $n$, $\bigcup \mathcal{F}_n$ is not null. So we can define a total two valued measure on $|\mathcal{F_n}| \leq \kappa$ hence also on $\kappa$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm afraid I don't see how you conclude that $\theta$ supports a total 0-1 valued measure. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 24 '14 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ Oops! I forgot to make $B_i$'s disjoint. I will edit my answer. $\endgroup$ – hot_queen Oct 24 '14 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, all that is used in your original argument is that each point has a null neighborhood. But that holds for many non-metric spaces. Take the Dieudonné measure on $\omega_1 + 1$ and restrict it to $\omega_1$ - now every point of $\omega_1$ has a null neighborhood (for instance $i$ has $[0,i+1)$.) But ZFC proves that $\aleph_1$ is not measurable. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 24 '14 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ Actually for that matter, every point of $\omega_1$ is $G_\delta$. $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Oct 24 '14 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Nate: One more reason to ditch choice, and work in models where $\aleph_1$ is in fact measurable! :-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 25 '14 at 4:02

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.