Is a measure space necessary for integration?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Integration is fundamentally linked to measure spaces, specifically the Lebesgue measure for the Lebesgue integral and the Jordan measure for the Riemann integral. The discussion explores the possibility of defining integration without a measure space, proposing an alternative framework where a function V assigns values to subsets. This framework includes conditions such as the complement of a valued set remaining valued and the summation of values across disjoint sets. The proposed method introduces concepts like finite partitions and supremum and infimum of function images, suggesting a new definition of 'integral' that may not rely on traditional measure properties.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lebesgue and Riemann integrals
  • Familiarity with measure theory concepts
  • Knowledge of set theory and partitions
  • Basic grasp of ordered rings and supremum/infimum properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of Lebesgue and Jordan measures
  • Explore alternative integration methods in measure theory
  • Study finite partitions and their applications in integration
  • Learn about ordered rings and their role in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and researchers in measure theory seeking to understand integration beyond traditional measure spaces.

NateTG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
7
Integrals are typically associated with measure spaces. For example, the Lebesgue measure for the Lebesgue integral and the Jordan measure for the Rieman integral. But it seems like it should be possible to define an analogue of integration on something weaker than a measure space. So, what is the motiviation for having integration on a measure, rather than some other method for assigning values to subsets?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And what properties would this 'assignment of values' have? I suspect it might necessarily be a measure for it to have the nice properties of integration that you want.
 
matt grime said:
And what properties would this 'assignment of values' have? I suspect it might necessarily be a measure for it to have the nice properties of integration that you want.
I was originally thinking of something like:
If A and B are valued sets then
If A \subset B then A's complement in B is also valued.
If A \cap B = \null then V(A)+V(B)=V(A \union B).
And, V(A)\geq 0.
This is not necessarily a measure since it is not necessarily an algebra.
But it's not that difficult to hack up an abstract notion of 'integral' that doesn't even require that:
Let's say I have some set X, with M \subset P(X) and some
function V:M \rightarrow R, where R is a linearly ordered complete ring.
Then let \mathbb{P} be the set of all finite partitions of X that are subsets of M and that do not contain the empty set.
Now, let P \in \mathbb{P} be some partition of X that is a subset of M. Then (for lack of a better term) let the top of P[/tex] be <br /> \rm{top}(P)=\sum_{p \in P} V( p) \times \rm{max}(f(p))<br /> where \rm{max}(f(p)) is the supremum of the image of p in f.<br /> And, let the bottom of P be<br /> \rm{bottom}(P)=\sum_{p \in P} V(p) \times \rm{min}(f(p))<br /> where \rm{min}(f(p)) is the infimum of the image of p in f.<br /> Then if \rm{sup}\{p \in \mathbb{P}, \rm{bottom}(P)\}=\rm{inf}\{p \in \mathbb{P}, \rm{top}(P)\}, let&#039;s say that \rm{sup}\{p \in \mathbb{P}, \rm{bottom}(P)\} is the &#039;integral&#039; of f on X and otherwise that f is not &#039;integrable&#039; on X.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K