Extension of measure on sigma-algebra

AI Thread Summary
A countable additive measure ##\mu## on a ##\sigma##-algebra ##\mathcal{F}## over a set ##\Omega## can be extended to a new measure ##\nu## on the generated ##\sigma##-algebra ##\mathcal{F}_{E}## that includes an arbitrary set ##E##. The proposed method involves defining ##\nu(U)## as the supremum of ##\mu(V)## for all sets ##V## in ##\mathcal{F}## that are subsets of ##U##. This definition aligns with ##\mu## on ##\mathcal{F}## and can be shown to match on additional sets derived from ##E##. The challenge remains to prove that ##\nu## is countably additive, but the structure of ##\mathcal{F}_{E}## supports this approach. The discussion emphasizes the potential to utilize the measure extension theorem effectively in this context.
Mike.B
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Suppose ##\mu:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow[0,\infty)## be a countable additive measure on a ##\sigma##-algebra ##\mathcal{F}## over a set ##\Omega##. Take any ##E\subseteq \Omega##. Let ##\mathcal{F}_{E}:=\sigma(\mathcal{F}\cup\{E\})##. Then, PROVE there is a countable additive measure ##\nu:\mathcal{F}_{E}\rightarrow [0,\infty)## such that ##\nu(A)=\mu(A)## for any ##A\in\mathcal{F}##. I already know the measure extension theorem. But it is based on algebra and the extension is only about ##\sigma(\mathcal{F})##. Can someone give me hint? Or how can I make use of measure extension theorem.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think it may be possible to show that \mathscr{F}_E=\sigma(\mathscr{F}\cup\{E\})=\mathscr{F}\cup\mathscr{A}_\cup\cup\mathscr{A}_\cap\cup\mathscr{A}_\smallsetminus
where
\mathscr{A}_\cup\equiv\{S\cup E\vert S\in \mathscr{F}\}
\mathscr{A}_\cap\equiv\{S\cap E\vert S\in \mathscr{F}\}
\mathscr{A}_\smallsetminus\equiv\{S\smallsetminus E\vert S\in \mathscr{F}\}

I can't see a way to use the Caratheodory Extension Theorem here, because the point of that is in going from finite to countably infinite unions, and that is not the obstacle, if the above is correct.

But what if we were to define measure \nu on \mathscr{F}_E by
\nu(U)\equiv \sup\{\mu(V)\vert V\in\mathscr{F}\wedge V\subseteq U\}

This clearly matches \mu on \mathscr{F}. I think it may be possible to show that it matches on
\mathscr{A}_\cup,\mathscr{A}_\cap,\mathscr{A}_\smallsetminus, taking them one at a time.

It then remains to show that \nu is a countably additive measure, which again I think should be possible.
 
  • Like
Likes Mike.B
We need one more component of \mathscr{F}_E, which is \mathscr{A}_{\cup\smallsetminus}\equiv\{S\cup (\Omega\smallsetminus E)\vert S\in \mathscr{F}\}. It is pretty straightforward to show that \mathscr{F}_E=\sigma(\mathscr{F}\cup\{E\})=\mathscr{F}\cup\mathscr{A}_\cup\cup\mathscr{A}_\cap\cup\mathscr{A}_\smallsetminus\cup \mathscr{A}_{\cup\smallsetminus} and the union is disjoint.
 
  • Like
Likes Mike.B
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top