Extending pre-measures to outer-measures
From Maths
Contents
[hide]Statement
Given a pre-measure, ˉμ, on a ring of sets, R, we can define a new function, μ∗ which is[1]:
- an extension of ˉμ and
- an outer-measure (on the hereditary σ-ring generated by R, written HσR(R))
Given by:
- μ∗:HσR(R)→ˉR≥0
- μ∗:A↦inf{∞∑n=1ˉμ(An)|(An)∞n=1⊆R∧A⊆∞⋃n=1An}
The statement of the theorem is that this μ∗ is indeed an outer-measure
Proof
[Expand]
Recall the definition of an outer-measure, we must show μ∗ satisfies this.
- We claimed that μ∗ is an extension of ˉμ, this means that: ∀A∈R[μ∗=ˉμ]. Let us check this.
- Let A∈R be given.
- First we must bound μ∗ above. This is because [μ∗(A)=ˉμ(A)]⟺[μ∗(A)≥ˉμ(A)∧ˉμ(A)≥μ∗(A)]
- Remember that ∅∈R as R is a ring of sets
- We can now define a sequence, (An)∞n=1⊆R as follows:
- A1=A
- An=∅ for n\ge 2
- So ({ A_n })_{ n = 1 }^{ \infty }\subseteq \mathcal{R} is (A,\emptyset,\emptyset,\ldots)
- Now \sum_{n=1}^\infty \bar{\mu}(A_n)=\bar{\mu}(A)+\bar{\mu}(\emptyset)+\bar{\mu}(\emptyset)+\ldots=\bar{\mu}(A)+0+0+\ldots=\bar{\mu}(\emptyset)
- We can now define a sequence, (An)∞n=1⊆R as follows:
- So \mu^*(A)\le\bar{\mu}(A) (as \mu^* is the defined as the infimum of such expressions, all we have done is find an upper-bound for it)
- Remember that ∅∈R as R is a ring of sets
- Now we must bound \mu^* below (by \bar{\mu}(A)) to show they're equal.
- Using the (pre-)measure of a set is no more than the sum of the (pre-)measures of the elements of a covering for that set, which states, symbolically:
- Given a set A and a countably infinite or finite sequence of sets, (A_i) such that A\subseteq\bigcup_i A_i then \bar{\mu}(A)\le\sum_i\bar{\mu}(A_i)
- By passing to the infimum we see that \bar{\mu}(A)\le\mu^*(A) as required.
- Using the (pre-)measure of a set is no more than the sum of the (pre-)measures of the elements of a covering for that set, which states, symbolically:
- First we must bound μ∗ above. This is because [μ∗(A)=ˉμ(A)]⟺[μ∗(A)≥ˉμ(A)∧ˉμ(A)≥μ∗(A)]
- Let A∈R be given.
Problems with proof
- How do we know the infimum even exists!
- Was being silly, any set of real numbers bounded below has an infimum, as \bar{\mu}:\mathcal{R}\rightarrow\bar{\mathbb{R} }_{\ge 0} we see that -1 is a lower bound for example. Having a lot of silly moments lately.
- For the application of passing to the infimum how do we know that the infimum involving \bar{\mu} even exists (this probably uses monotonicity of \bar{\mu} and should be easy to show)
References
|