MHB Is it enough to show that it is a Lebesgue measure?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I want to show that when $\mu$ is a Borel measure in $\mathbb{R}$ with $\mu([0,1))=1$, which is a translation invariant, then it is also a Lebesgue measure.

I have shown that $\mu([a,b))=b-a, \forall a,b \in \mathbb{Q}$.

Is it enough to show that $\mu$ is a Lebesgue measure?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If two Borel measures agree on intervals of the form $[a,b)$ then they agree on anything in the $\sigma$-algebra which is generated by those intervals.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

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