Proof of Hahn decomposition theorem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the Hahn decomposition theorem, which pertains to signed measures. The theorem asserts that any measurable set X can be expressed as a disjoint union of a positive set A and a negative set B. The proof strategy involves demonstrating that if A is not positive, it leads to a contradiction by analyzing subsets E_0 and E_k, ultimately showing that the measure of certain sets must be less than specified thresholds, thereby confirming the theorem's validity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of signed measures and their properties
  • Familiarity with measurable sets and their classifications
  • Knowledge of set theory, particularly disjoint unions
  • Basic grasp of inequalities and their implications in proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of signed measures in detail
  • Explore the concept of measurable sets and their subsets
  • Learn about the implications of disjoint unions in measure theory
  • Investigate advanced proof techniques in real analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in measure theory and its applications in mathematical proofs.

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
I'm trying to read this proof, and I'm stuck on the inequality on page 27 following the statement "It follows that every measurable subset..." Why does it hold?

The theorem is about signed measures, i.e. functions that are like measures, but can assign both positive and negative "sizes" to sets. A measurable set is said to be positive if all its measurable subsets have a non-negative size. The term negative is defined similarly. The theorem asserts that the set X is a disjoint union of a positive set A and a negative set B. The strategy of the proof is roughly this: First find a set B and show that it's negative. Define A=X-B. Suppose that A is not positive. (This will lead to a contradiction). It's not too hard to see that A doesn't have any negative subsets, but we can still pick a subset [itex]E_0\subset A[/itex] that has a negative size. Then we cut away disjoint pieces of [itex]E_0[/itex], denoted by [itex]E_1,E_2,\dots[/itex] that have positive sizes. The goal is to show that [itex]E_0-\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty E_k[/itex] is negative.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, it tool me a while, but I've got it. Remember that [itex]m_k[/itex] is the smallest integer such that there is a set [itex]E_k[/itex].

[tex]\mu (E_k)\geq \frac{1}{m_k}[/tex]

Now take F measurable, if

[tex]\mu(F)\geq \frac{1}{m_k-1}[/tex]

then [itex]m_k-1[/itex] is a smaller integer and [itex]F[/itex] is another set for which

[tex]\mu(F)\geq \frac{1}{m_k-1}[/tex]

This is in contradiction with the choice of [itex]m_k[/itex]. Thus it must hold that

[tex]\mu(F)<\frac{1}{m_k-1}[/tex]
 
You sir, are awesome. That was crystal clear. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K