Undergrad Generalization of measure theory to uncountable unions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the generalization of measure theory to accommodate uncountable unions, specifically examining the additivity property of measures defined as $$\mu\left(\bigcup_{i\in\ I} A_i\right)=\sup_{J\subset\ I}\sum_{i\in\ J}\mu\left(A_i\right)$$. Participants conclude that allowing all uncountable unions on the power set of real numbers, P(ℝ), leads only to trivial measures. The conversation also explores the potential of hyperreal-valued measures to handle infinite sums, while questioning the feasibility of partitioning the unit interval into uncountable subsets with non-zero Lebesgue measure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of measure theory concepts, particularly Lebesgue measure.
  • Familiarity with the notion of uncountable sets and their properties.
  • Knowledge of hyperreal numbers and their application in measure theory.
  • Basic grasp of Riemann sums and their relation to convergence.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of hyperreal-valued measures in advanced measure theory.
  • Study the implications of uncountable unions on Lebesgue measure and its limitations.
  • Explore cardinality arguments in set theory and their relevance to measure theory.
  • Investigate alternative measures that can handle uncountable collections, such as non-standard analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in measure theory, set theory, and real analysis, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of advanced mathematical concepts related to uncountable unions and measures.

greypilgrim
Messages
581
Reaction score
44
Hi.

Is there some kind of measure theory generalized to uncountable unions? Of course one needs to take care how to make sense of sums over an uncountable index set. I was thinking about following formulation of the additivity property of the "measure":
$$\mu\left(\bigcup_{i\in\ I} A_i\right)=\sup_{J\subset\ I}\sum_{i\in\ J}\mu\left(A_i\right)$$
Here ##I## can be uncountable, but the supremum is taken over all countable subsets ##J##.

Obviously, if we allow all uncountable unions on ##P(\mathbb{R})##, only the trivial measure can satisfy this (because we can divide every set into subsets of single elements with "measure" 0). But can there be a (nontrivial) subset of uncountable unions that allows for a nontrivial "measure"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
greypilgrim said:
Hi.

Is there some kind of measure theory generalized to uncountable unions? Of course one needs to take care how to make sense of sums over an uncountable index set. I was thinking about following formulation of the additivity property of the "measure":
$$\mu\left(\bigcup_{i\in\ I} A_i\right)=\sup_{J\subset\ I}\sum_{i\in\ J}\mu\left(A_i\right)$$
Here ##I## can be uncountable, but the supremum is taken over all countable subsets ##J##.

Obviously, if we allow all uncountable unions on ##P(\mathbb{R})##, only the trivial measure can satisfy this (because we can divide every set into subsets of single elements with "measure" 0). But can there be a (nontrivial) subset of uncountable unions that allows for a nontrivial "measure"?

I am not sure, sorry, but I have thought of using hyperreal-valued measures, since this would allow for sums to assume infinite values. Still, it seems hard to interpret a set having a measure with non-zero non-standard part. I think I saw this dealt with somewhere; let me see if I can find a link to the source. Your taking limits over countable subsets kind of reminds me of Riemann sums.
 
Maybe I should have started with a more concrete question: Is there a partition of the unit interval into an uncountable number of subsets that all have nonzero Lebesgue measure?
 
greypilgrim said:
Maybe I should have started with a more concrete question: Is there a partition of the unit interval into an uncountable number of subsets that all have nonzero Lebesgue measure?
If I understood correctly, no, if by partition you mean breaking down into pairwise-disjoint subsets.. For sum to converge ( meaning to be finite in this case) , support must be countable ; finite or infinite, of course.
 
greypilgrim said:
Maybe I should have started with a more concrete question: Is there a partition of the unit interval into an uncountable number of subsets that all have nonzero Lebesgue measure?
No, because then, there must be an infinite (in fact uncountable) set of sets from the partition which all have measure > 1/n for some specific n > 0 (otherwise the partition would be countable, since it would be a countable union of countable sets), and then the measure of the unit interval would be infinite, a contradiction.

I think this is what WWGD meant.
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
Erland said:
No, because then, there must be an infinite (in fact uncountable) set of sets from the partition which all have measure > 1/n for some specific n > 0 (otherwise the partition would be countable, since it would be a countable union of countable sets), and then the measure of the unit interval would be infinite, a contradiction.

I think this is what WWGD meant.
Yes; exactly what I meant define ##S_n:=\{ s: s>1/n\} ## for ##s## in the collection . Then , by cardinality argument, at least one such ## S_n## is infinite...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K