Measure Question: Is m Finitely Additive?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter homology
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the properties of a measure m induced by an ultrafilter F on a set I, specifically its finite additivity. The measure m is defined such that m(A) = 1 if A is an element of F and m(A) = 0 otherwise. The initial confusion arose from the assumption that m could be finitely additive when considering non-disjoint sets A and B, but it was clarified that since A and B cannot be disjoint in F, the finite additivity condition is vacuously satisfied. Thus, m qualifies as a measure due to the nature of ultrafilters.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ultrafilters in set theory
  • Knowledge of measure theory concepts
  • Familiarity with finite additivity and countable additivity
  • Basic principles of nonstandard analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ultrafilters in depth
  • Explore the implications of finite and countable additivity in measure theory
  • Learn about nonstandard analysis and its applications in mathematics
  • Investigate examples of measures induced by different types of filters
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced mathematics, and anyone interested in measure theory and its foundational concepts.

homology
Messages
305
Reaction score
1
Yep its me again, with another dumb question.

Say you have a set I with an ultrafilter F on it. Now I came across the following in a text on nonstandard analysis:

let m be the measure induced by F defined as m(A) =1 if A is an element of F and zero otherwise.

I know this is going to be stupid, but it doesn't seem as though m is even finitely additive. Suppose A and B are elements of F then AUB is in F since if they weren't then their complement A'^B' (A' the complement of A and B' the complement of B and ^ for intersection) would be. But if A'^B' is in F then we could intersect A with A'^B' and get the empty set, which is not an element of F. So anyways, since AUB is in F the "induced measure" m(AUB)=1, but the m(A)+m(B)=2, so what gives?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A and B are not disjoint.
 
Doh! Of course, they can't be if they belong to F. So then the fact that m is finitely additive is vacuously satisfied. There are no pairwise disjoint elements of F. So likewise for the countable additivity clause. So then m is a measure because F has not pairwise...i see.

Thanks Matt Grime!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K