Undergrad Measure with respect to complete measure is also complete

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A measure space (X, ℳ, μ) is complete if for any set N in ℳ with measure zero (μ(N) = 0), all subsets S of N are also in ℳ. The discussion explores the conditions under which another measure ν is complete if μ is complete. It establishes that if ν(N) = 0 for a set N, but S ⊆ N is not in ℳ, then a contradiction arises unless μ(N) > 0. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity of conditions on the function involved, particularly regarding the support, to ensure completeness of the new measure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of measure theory concepts, specifically completeness of measures.
  • Familiarity with measure spaces and null sets.
  • Knowledge of functions and their properties in the context of measures.
  • Basic grasp of σ-algebras and their role in measure theory.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of complete measures in detail.
  • Explore the implications of null sets in measure theory.
  • Learn about the relationship between different measures, particularly in terms of completeness.
  • Investigate the role of support in defining measures and their completeness.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and researchers in measure theory seeking to deepen their understanding of measure completeness and its implications in mathematical analysis.

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.
 

Similar threads

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