How to prove a set belongs to Borel sigma-algebra?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving that if two measures, ##m## and ##n##, on the Borel sigma-algebra ##\mathcal B## of real numbers are equal for open intervals, then they are equal for all sets in ##\mathcal B##. The participants emphasize that since open intervals are part of the Borel sigma-algebra, establishing that a set like ##(a, b)## belongs to ##\mathcal B## is crucial. They suggest using the Monotone Class theorem as an alternative to Dynkin's ##\pi - \lambda## theorem to prove the equality of measures for all Borel sets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Borel sigma-algebra and its properties
  • Familiarity with measure theory concepts, particularly measures on real numbers
  • Knowledge of the Monotone Class theorem and Dynkin's theorem
  • Basic comprehension of open sets in topology
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Monotone Class theorem in detail
  • Review the properties of Borel sigma-algebra and its generation from open sets
  • Explore Richard F. Bass' online book on entry-level analysis for foundational concepts
  • Investigate the implications of countable additivity in measure theory
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in mathematics, particularly those focusing on measure theory and topology, as well as anyone looking to deepen their understanding of Borel sets and measure equivalence.

A.Magnus
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
I am working on this problem on measure theory like this:

Suppose ##X## is the set of real numbers, ##\mathcal B## is the Borel ##\sigma##-algebra, and ##m## and ##n## are two measures on ##(X, \mathcal B)## such that ##m((a, b))=n((a, b))< \infty## whenever ##−\infty<a<b<\infty##. Prove that ##m(A)=n(A)## whenever ##A\in \mathcal B##.​

Here is what I am envisioning but I am not so sure: Since ##a, b \in \mathbb R## and since ##A## is an arbitrary subset of ##\mathcal B##, so if only I can prove that ##(a, b) \in \mathcal B##, then I am done. But here is my question:

How do I go ahead proving that ##(a, b) \in \mathcal B##? Can I just using the classic formula that if ##\forall a \in (a, b) \rightarrow a \in \mathcal B##, then ##(a, b) \in \mathcal B##? Any other step I need to follow?​

Thanks for your time and effort.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Borel \sigma-algebra on a topological space is by definition the algebra generated by the open subsets of that space. Since (a,b) \subset \mathbb{R} is open it's in the Borel \sigma-algebra of \mathbb{R}.
 
A.Magnus said:
Since ##a, b \in \mathbb R## and since ##A## is an arbitrary subset of ##\mathcal B##, so if only I can prove that ##(a, b) \in \mathcal B##, then I am done.
Why would you be done after that step?
 
pasmith said:
The Borel \sigma-algebra on a topological space is by definition the algebra generated by the open subsets of that space. Since (a,b) \subset \mathbb{R} is open it's in the Borel \sigma-algebra of \mathbb{R}.
Yes, I also thought along that line of reasoning similar to yours, but it looks like too easy to be true, therefore I am not so sure about it. Thanks again.
 
Stephen Tashi said:
Why would you be done after that step?
My reasoning is that since ##(a, b) \in \mathcal B## and since ##A## is an arbitrary set of ##\mathcal B##, therefore ##m((A)) = n((A))##. Let me know if it is flawed. Thanks again.
 
A.Magnus said:
My reasoning is that since ##(a, b) \in \mathcal B## and since ##A## is an arbitrary set of ##\mathcal B##, therefore ##m((A)) = n((A))##. Let me know if it is flawed. Thanks again.

I don't follow that at all. You are only given that the two measures are equal for sets that are open intervals. Not all of the sets that are elements of ##\mathcal B## are open intervals.
 
Dick said:
I don't follow that at all. You are only given that the two measures are equal for sets that are open intervals. Not all of the sets that are elements of ##\mathcal B## are open intervals.
My reasoning was shaky at best to begin with, for that reason I posted this question here. I did receive some input on solution to this problem, but all of them requiring big-tool theorems such as Dykin's ##\pi - \lambda## theorem, measurable functions, etc., all of them are out of the range for the time being. In fact this question comes only from the 3rd. chapter of Richard F. Bass' online book http://homepages.uconn.edu/~rib02005/rags010213.pdf on entry-level analysis, therefore those big-tools are not yet in the background.

I am totally lost but I am still hopeful I can get a solution. Thanks again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A.Magnus said:
My reasoning was shaky at best to begin with, for that reason I posted this question here. I did receive some input on solution to this problem, but all of them requiring big-tool theorems such as Dykin's ##\pi - \lambda## theorem, measurable functions, etc., all of them are out of the range for the time being. In fact this question comes only from the 3rd. chapter of Richard F. Bass' online book http://homepages.uconn.edu/~rib02005/rags010213.pdf on entry-level analysis, therefore those big-tools are not yet in the background.

I am totally lost but I am still hopeful I can get a solution. Thanks again.

My measure theory is pretty rusty. But I think you can also use the Monotone Class theorem instead of Dynkin's theorem. That's in the 2nd chapter. Hint: let ##\mathcal M## be the set of all sets such that ##m(A)=n(A)##. You'll want to prove that's a monotone class. Use countable additivity of the measures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K