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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in measure theory concerning the Borel sigma-algebra on the set of real numbers. The original poster seeks to prove that two measures are equal on all Borel sets, given their equality on open intervals.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definition of the Borel sigma-algebra and question the necessity of proving that open intervals belong to it. There is a discussion about the implications of proving that a specific set is in the Borel sigma-algebra and whether that leads to the conclusion about all Borel sets.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights regarding the nature of Borel sets and the measures involved. There is an acknowledgment of uncertainty about the reasoning presented, particularly concerning the application of broader theorems and the original poster's understanding of the problem.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses concern about the complexity of theorems required for a solution and notes that the problem is from an entry-level analysis text, indicating a potential gap in background knowledge for some participants.

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