Can a Pre-Measure on a Symmetric Sigma Algebra Be Extended to Borel Sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fishturtle1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the extension of a pre-measure defined on a symmetric sigma algebra, denoted as ##\sum##, to the Borel sets ##\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##. The participants establish that while ##\sum## is a sigma-algebra, it does not equal the Borel sigma-algebra, leading to the conclusion that ##\sigma(\sum) \neq \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##. The conversation also clarifies that Carathéodory's theorem provides sufficient conditions for extending a pre-measure, but these conditions are not strictly necessary, addressing a common misconception regarding the extension process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of sigma algebras, specifically symmetric sigma algebras.
  • Familiarity with Borel sets and the Borel sigma-algebra ##\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##.
  • Knowledge of Carathéodory's theorem and its implications for measure theory.
  • Basic proficiency in set theory and measure theory concepts.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of symmetric sigma algebras in detail.
  • Explore the implications of Carathéodory's theorem in measure theory.
  • Investigate the differences between various types of sigma algebras, including Borel and Lebesgue sigma algebras.
  • Learn about the construction of measures on sigma algebras and the conditions required for their extension.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of measure theory, and researchers interested in the foundations of analysis and the properties of sigma algebras.

fishturtle1
Messages
393
Reaction score
82
Homework Statement
Consider on ##\mathbb{R}## the family ##\sum## of all Borel sets which are symmetric w.r.t. the origin. Show that ##\sum## is a ##\sigma## algebra. Is it possible to extend a pre measure ##\mu## on ##\sigma## to a measure on ##\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##? If so, is this extension unique?
Relevant Equations
Definition: A semi-ring is a family ##\mathcal{S} \subset \mathcal{P}(X)## with the following properties:

1) ##\emptyset \in \mathcal{S}##

2) ##S, T \in \mathcal{S} \Rightarrow S \cap T \in \mathcal{S}##

3) For ##S, T \in \mathcal{S}## there exists finitely many disjoint ##S_1, S_2, \dots, S_M \in \mathcal{S}## such that ##S \setminus T = \bigcup_{i=1}^M S_i##.

Theorem: (Carathéodory) Let ##\mathcal{S} \subset \mathcal{P}(X)## be a semi-ring and ##\mu:[0, \infty]## a pre measure, i.e. a set function with

i) ##\mu(\emptyset) = 0##

ii) ##(S_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \subset \mathcal{S}##, disjoint and ##S = \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}S_n \in \mathcal{S}\Rightarrow \mu(S) = \sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \mu(S_n)##.

Then ##\mu## has an extension to a measure ##\mu## on ##\sigma(\mathcal{S})##. Moreover, if ##\mathcal{S}## contains an exhausting sequence ##(S_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}##, ##S_n \uparrow X## such that ##\mu(S_n) < \infty## for all ##n\in\mathbb{N}##, then the extension is unique.
-------------
Attempt at solution: We have ##\sum = \lbrace B \subset \mathbb{R} : b \in B \Rightarrow -b \in B \rbrace##. Clearly, ##\emptyset \in \sum##. Let ##B \in \sum## and ##a \in B^c##. Then ##a \not\in B## which implies ##-a\not\in B##. So ##-a \in B^c## i.e. ##B^c \in \sum##. Lastly, for any ##(B_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \subset \sum##, if ##b \in \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}B_n##, then ##b \in B_k## for some ##k## which implies ##-b \in B_k \subset \bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}B_n##. This shows ##\sum## is a ##\sigma## algebra.

However, I don't think we can extend a measure on ##\sum## to ##\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})## only using the above theorem. My reasoning is because ##\sigma(\sum) \neq \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##. My questions are this:

1) How can I prove that ##\sigma(\sum) \neq \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##? I guessed this is true because I don't see how to show ##[1, 2) \in \sigma(\sum)##.

2) The book's solution says that we can extend a pre measure on ##\sum## to a measure on ##\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})##, but in theorem 6.1. we require ##\sigma(\sum) = \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})## for such an extension to exist? I think I am missing something..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since ##\Sigma## is a ##\sigma##-algebra, we have ##\sigma(\Sigma)=\Sigma##.

Thus trivially ##\sigma(\Sigma)\subsetneq B(\mathbb{R})##.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: fishturtle1
Math_QED said:
Since ##\Sigma## is a ##\sigma##-algebra, we have ##\sigma(\Sigma)=\Sigma##.

Thus trivially ##\sigma(\Sigma)\subsetneq B(\mathbb{R})##.
Thank you, that makes sense.

I think things are cleared up. Carathéodory's theorem (the one in OP) gives us sufficient but not necessary conditions to extend a pre measure. So we don't necessarily have to meet the requirement of the theorem in order to extend a pre measure to a measure. And this answers my 2nd question, I think.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K