Categorical Counterpart to Relation bet Metric and Measure S

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential categorical parallels between measure spaces and metric spaces, specifically exploring whether there exists a functorial relationship between the categories of metric spaces with continuous maps and measure spaces with measurable maps. Participants examine the implications of associating measures with metric spaces and the conditions under which such associations can be described using category theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that for any metric space, there exists a corresponding measure space derived from the sigma algebra generated by open sets and n-dimensional volume.
  • Others question the validity of assuming a measure space corresponds to a metric space, suggesting that not all measure triples can be associated with a metric structure.
  • A participant mentions the possibility of using Hausdorff measure and Borel sigma algebra in relation to general metric spaces, though they express uncertainty about its applicability.
  • Another participant introduces the categories of topological spaces and measurable spaces, noting the existence of a functor from topological spaces to measurable spaces, and hints at the interest in adjoint functors.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the definition of measures and dimensions in this context, indicating a need for clarification.
  • There is a challenge to the assumptions made about the correspondence between metric spaces and measure spaces, with a suggestion that the original question may be ill-posed.
  • Participants refer to previous posts to clarify and refine their arguments, indicating an ongoing dialogue about the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of a functorial relationship between the two categories. There are competing views regarding the assumptions made about the correspondence between metric and measure spaces, with some participants challenging the validity of these assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential ambiguity in defining measures based solely on metrics and the unresolved nature of the relationship between various sigma algebras and metric spaces. The discussion also highlights the complexity of applying category theory to this context.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,806
Reaction score
13,120
Hi, just curious. Sorry I am trying to get a handle on this , will try to make it more precise:
I am trying to see if the following has a categorical parallel/counterpart.
Consider the case of measure spaces (X,S,m) : X any space, S a sigma algebra, m a measure and that
of metric spaces (Y,d) with ( I would say) continuous maps. Given a metric space (Y,d) , there always exists a measure space associated with it, given by the sigma algebra generated by the open sets ( themselves generated by open metric balls ), and measure is n-dimensional volume. But, a given measure triple (X,S,m) does not necessarily correspond to a metric space (X,d), i.e, (X,S,m) is not necessarily a measure triple associated to (X,d).
(Phew!) Is there a way of expressing/describing the above using Category Theory, e.g., can we describe the above in terms of the non-existence of functors between the categories (Metric spaces, Cont. Maps) and (measure spaces with measurable maps)?
Thanks, sorry for the rambling.
 
WWGD said:
Hi, just curious. Sorry I am trying to get a handle on this , will try to make it more precise:
I am trying to see if the following has a categorical parallel/counterpart.
Consider the case of measure spaces (X,S,m) : X any space, S a sigma algebra, m a measure and that
of metric spaces (Y,d) with ( I would say) continuous maps. Given a metric space (Y,d) , there always exists a measure space associated with it, given by the sigma algebra generated by the open sets ( themselves generated by open metric balls ), and measure is n-dimensional volume.

How would you define this measure? What does dimension mean here?
 
Ah, yes, sorry, I was thinking of ## \mathbb R^n ##. Still, the issue is whether the possibility/issue of an assignment of a measure/ sigma algebra to a metric space (the one generated by the open sets and n-dimensional voume) can be described functorially or has a parallel description in terms of category theory. So that, e.g., the existence of a functor between these two categories would give a yes answer and a nonexistence woud say no.
Re the general issue,. maybe in general metric spaces we can use the Hausdorff measure and the Borel sigma algebra? I think this last may not work, I have not thought it through enough.
 
So indeed, you can have the category ##\textbf{Top}## of topological spaces and the category ##\textbf{Meas}## of measurable spaces (sets with ##\sigma##-algebra). Then you indeed have a functor ##F:\textbf{Top}\rightarrow \textbf{Meas}##.

There are of course various functors from ##\textbf{Meas}## to ##\textbf{Top}##, but you will probably be interesting in some kind of left-or right adjoint of ##F##.
 
Ah, thanks, been out of school for too long.
 
WWGD said:
Hi, just curious. Sorry I am trying to get a handle on this , will try to make it more precise:
I am trying to see if the following has a categorical parallel/counterpart.
Consider the case of measure spaces (X,S,m) : X any space, S a sigma algebra, m a measure and that
of metric spaces (Y,d) with ( I would say) continuous maps. Given a metric space (Y,d) , there always exists a measure space associated with it, given by the sigma algebra generated by the open sets ( themselves generated by open metric balls ), and measure is n-dimensional volume. But, a given measure triple (X,S,m) does not necessarily correspond to a metric space (X,d), i.e, (X,S,m) is not necessarily a measure triple associated to (X,d).
(Phew!) Is there a way of expressing/describing the above using Category Theory, e.g., can we describe the above in terms of the non-existence of functors between the categories (Metric spaces, Cont. Maps) and (measure spaces with measurable maps)?
Thanks, sorry for the rambling.
Given a metric space one can associate many different sigma algebras with it. For instance: the sigma algebra generated by the open sets; the sigma algebra generated by the open balls; and so on. I don't know of any obvious way to define a measure on either of these sigma algebras given only the metric. There is of course a whole theory of Hausdorff dimension and Hausdorff measure. So I think your assumptions are not true and hence your question ill-posed.
 
gill1109 said:
Given a metric space one can associate many different sigma algebras with it. For instance: the sigma algebra generated by the open sets; the sigma algebra generated by the open balls; and so on. I don't know of any obvious way to define a measure on either of these sigma algebras given only the metric. There is of course a whole theory of Hausdorff dimension and Hausdorff measure. So I think your assumptions are not true and hence your question ill-posed.
Please refer to my post #5 where I made my argument more specific, refined. I did refer to the general issue of the _possibility_ of this correspondence , and I also referred to Hausdorff metric and Hausdorff measure.
 
  • #10
WWGD said:
Please refer to my post #5 where I made my argument more specific, refined. I did refer to the general issue of the _possibility_ of this correspondence , and I also referred to Hausdorff metric and Hausdorff measure.
Thanks. We need an expert on category theory to answer this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K