I have seen a number of definitions of measurable functions, particularly, for the following two definitions, are they the same?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

1) A function f:X->R is measurable iff for every open subset T of R, the inverse image of T is measurable.

2) A function f:X->R is measurable iff for every Borel set B of R, the inverse image of B is measurable.

Here, R is the real line.

I suppose they are the same, but I haven't been able to show they are equivalent (one direction is easy, but the other one, by assuming any open set has measurable inverse image and showing that the inverse image of all Borel set is measurable, doesn't seem to be that easy, since Borel sets in general cannot be easily writen down in terms of open sets).

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Definitions of Measurable Functions

Loading...

Similar Threads for Definitions Measurable Functions | Date |
---|---|

I "Imagine" a definite integral with a finite number of discontinuties | Mar 30, 2018 |

I Proving the Linear Transformation definition | Mar 27, 2018 |

B Question about a limit definition | Feb 27, 2018 |

I Integrating scaled and translated indicator function | Nov 20, 2017 |

About the definition of measurable functions | Dec 7, 2010 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**