On theorem 1.19 in Folland's and completion of measure

In summary, theorem 1.19 in Folland's work addresses the completion of a measure space, establishing that every σ-finite measure can be extended to a complete measure. The theorem highlights the process of taking a given measure and extending it by including all subsets of null sets, ensuring that the completed measure retains the properties of the original. This completion is crucial for applications in analysis and probability, as it allows for a broader class of measurable sets while maintaining consistency in measure theory.
  • #1
psie
278
32
TL;DR Summary
I'm struggling with a remark on page 35 in Folland's text. He makes a connection to a theorem that comes later, theorem 1.19, and I don't see connection.
Folland remarks on page 35 that each increasing and right-continuous function gives rise to not only a Borel measure ##\mu_F##, but also a complete measure ##\bar\mu_F## which includes the Borel ##\sigma##-algebra. He then says that the complete measure is the extension of the measure and that this should follow from the below theorem, theorem 1.19, where ##\mathcal M_\mu## is the domain of the complete (Lebesgue-Stieltjes) measure ##\mu##. How?

theorem19.PNG


(A ##G_\delta## set is a countable intersection of open sets, and a ##F_\sigma## set is a countable union of closed sets.)

From what I recall, I need to show that if $$N_1\subset E,E\in\mathcal M_\mu\text{ and }\mu(E)=0 \implies N_1\in\mathcal M_\mu.$$ The theorem, on the other hand, says that if ##E\in\mathcal M_\mu##, then there exists a (##G_\delta## set) ##V\in\mathcal B_\mathbb R\subset \mathcal M_\mu## such that ##E=V\setminus N_1## and ##\mu(N_1)=0##.

I struggle with putting the pieces together.

EDIT: Upon closer thought, maybe I need to use (c) and the fact that the completion ##\overline{\mathcal M}## of a ##\sigma##-algebra ##\mathcal M##, where ##\mathcal N=\{N\in\mathcal M:\mu(N)=0\}##, is $$\overline{\mathcal M}=\{E\cup F: E\in\mathcal M\text{ and } F\subset N\text{ for some } N\in\mathcal N\}.\tag1$$ Yet, I still don't see how theorem 1.19c and ##(1)## say the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
After some more thinking, I think I now understand how to show this.

##\overline{\mu}_F## is the completion of ##\mu_F##.

Recall that if ##(X,\mathcal M,\mu)## is a measure space and ##\mathcal N=\{N\in\mathcal M:\mu(N)=0\}##, then the complete ##\sigma##-algebra is $$\overline{\mathcal M}=\{E\cup F: E\in\mathcal M\text{ and } F\subset N\text{ for some } N\in\mathcal N\}.$$ We prove ##\mathcal{M}_\mu=\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\mathbb{R}##. If ##E\in\mathcal{M}_\mu##, then ##E=H\cup N##, where ##H## is an ##F_\sigma\in\mathcal{B}_\mathbb{R}## and ##\mu(N)=0##, so ##E\in\overline{\mathcal{B}}_\mathbb{R}##. For the other inclusion, suppose ##E\in\overline{\mathcal B}_\mathbb{R}##, then ##E=F\cup N_1## where ##F## is a Borel set and ##N_1## is a null set. But note, ##F=H\cup N_2##, where ##H## is an ##F_\sigma## set (since ##\mathcal B_\mathbb{R}\subset\mathcal M_\mu##). And since ##N_1\cup N_2## is a null set, ##H\cup (N_1\cup N_2)=E\in\mathcal M_\mu##.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top