Undergrad Measure with respect to complete measure is also complete

Click For Summary
A measure space is complete if every subset of a null set is also included in the measure's domain. The discussion revolves around the conditions under which a measure ν is also complete if another measure μ is complete. It is highlighted that if ν is not complete, there exists a null set N under ν that contains subsets not in the σ-algebra. The relationship between the measures suggests that if μ is complete and a function f is positive almost everywhere with respect to μ, then certain conditions must hold for ν to maintain completeness. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of conditions on the function or its support for the measures to align in terms of completeness.
psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
TL;DR
I haven't read much about the Radon–Nikodym theorem and the necessary background to understand this theorem, but I was wondering about the following basic definition of a measure; if ##f## is a nonnegative, measurable function, and ##(X,\mathcal M,\mu)## is any measure space, we can define $$\nu(A)=\int_A f\,d\mu$$ for ##A\in\mathcal M##. That this is a measure on ##\mathcal M## is not so hard to verify, but I wonder under what conditions this measure is complete.
A measure space ##(X,\mathcal M,\mu)## is complete iff $$S\subset N\in\mathcal M\text{ and }\mu(N)=0\implies S\in\mathcal M.$$The meaning of a complete measure is a measure whose domain includes all subsets of null sets.

Suppose now ##\mu## is complete. Under what conditions is ##\nu## also complete? I've heard different claims about this, which now has cast doubt upon my judgement of what is correct and incorrect. I'd be grateful if anyone could clarify this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose \nu is not complete. Then there exists a set N such that \nu(N) = 0 but there exists S \subset N such that S \notin \mathcal{M}. If \mu(N) = 0 this is a contradiction, so the only way this can happen is if \nu(N) = 0 and \mu(N) > 0.
 
pasmith said:
Suppose \nu is not complete. Then there exists a set N such that \nu(N) = 0 but there exists S \subset N such that S \notin \mathcal{M}. If \mu(N) = 0 this is a contradiction, so the only way this can happen is if \nu(N) = 0 and \mu(N) > 0.
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand. I was thinking; if ##\mu## is complete and ##f>0## ##\mu##-a.e., then we will have ##\nu(N)=0\implies \mu(N)=0## (in fact, the other direction holds too). Hence $$S\subset N\in\mathcal M\text{ and }\nu(N)=0\implies S\subset N\in\mathcal M\text{ and }\mu(N)=0\implies S\in\mathcal M.$$Are we saying the same thing?
 
There has to be some conditiin on the function, may be on the support. Otherwise any set it is zero on will be null for the new measure and all it subsets need to be in the algebra if the new measure is complete.
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K