Measure, bewildered by notation

  • Thread starter Thread starter holomorphic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Notation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
2 replies · 1K views
holomorphic
Messages
91
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[tex]\mathcal{A}[/tex] is a [tex]\sigma[/tex]-algebra, [tex]A_n,A\in\mathcal{A}[/tex].

Prove that if [tex]A_n\uparrow A[/tex] in [tex]\mathcal{A}[/tex] (i.e., [tex]A_1\subseteq A_2 \subseteq ...[/tex] and [tex]\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n = A[/tex]), then [tex]\mu (A_n) \uparrow \mu (A)[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


The up-arrow notation is defined on these sets, but I have no idea what it means in the case of [tex]\mu (A_n)[/tex]. I've seen the proof of theorem 11.3 in Rudin Principles of... but I'm having trouble understanding what's going on in this problem.

I'm mostly bewildered by the notation, which isn't in Rudin and hasn't been used in class.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that μ(An) is just a nonnegative number. It means {μ(An)} is an increasing sequence converging to μ(A). Since the sets are getting bigger, it makes sense doesn't it?
 
LCKurtz said:
Remember that μ(An) is just a nonnegative number. It means {μ(An)} is an increasing sequence converging to μ(A). Since the sets are getting bigger, it makes sense doesn't it?

I realized it was as simple as that about 15 minutes after I posted. But I still don't understand the advantage of his notation--in the end, I'm just showing [tex]\mu(A_n)\rightarrow\mu(A)[/tex] as [tex]n\rightarrow\infty[/tex].