Prove projection of a measurable set from product space is measurable

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Lagrange fanboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the measurability of projections of measurable sets from product spaces in the context of measure theory. Participants explore the implications of certain properties of sigma algebras and the conditions under which projections retain measurability.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references a claim regarding the measurability of the embedding from a measurable space into a product space, noting difficulties in proving that the projection of a measurable set remains measurable.
  • Another participant suggests that a measurable product set can be viewed as a union of rectangles, implying that the projection of such sets should also be measurable.
  • A different participant introduces a lemma about inverse images of functions and their implications for measurability, asserting that if certain conditions are met, projections can be shown to be measurable.
  • It is noted that while projections of measurable sets are often measurable, there are exceptions, specifically mentioning that the projection of a Borel measurable set in \(\mathbb{R}^2\) may not be Borel, referencing the concept of Souslin sets.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which projections of measurable sets remain measurable, indicating that the discussion includes multiple competing perspectives and remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the properties of sigma algebras and the specific conditions under which the discussed lemmas apply. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the relationship between different types of measurable sets.

Lagrange fanboy
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Given a set from a product sigma algebra, how do I prove that it's projection is measurable?
I was reading page 33 of https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/p.j.c.spreij/onderwijs/TI/mtpTI.pdf when I saw this claim:
Given measurable spaces ##(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1), (\Omega_2,\Sigma_2)## and the product space ##(\Omega_1\times \Omega_2, \Sigma)## where ##\Sigma## is the product sigma algebra, the embedding ##e_b:\Omega_1\rightarrow \Omega_1\times\Omega_2, x\mapsto (x,b)## is measurable.
After some reduction, I notice that ##e^{-1}_b(S)=\emptyset## if ##S\not = \{(x,b)|x\in A\}## for some ##A\subseteq \Omega_1##, otherwise ##e^{-1}_b(S)=\pi_1(S)##, the projection of ##S## onto the first component. Here I'm stuck. I can't show that if ##S\in \Sigma## then ##\pi_1(S)\in \Sigma_1##. I thought about using structural induction, taking advantage of the fact that ##\Sigma## is the smallest sigma algebra generated, but I think for structural induction to work I need to have a well-founded/well-ordered relation, which I cannot find.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you need a lemma from p.289
S Lang
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lagrange fanboy
Just an ignorant suggestion without doing the work: a measurable product set is presumably a union of rectangles with both sides measurable, and projection of a rectangle is a side. so projection of a measurable set is apparently a union of measurable sets, hence measurable. does something like this work?
 
You need the following simple fact/lemma:

Let a function ##f:X\to Y## be fixed, and let ##\Sigma## be a sigma-algebra on ##X##, and ##\mathcal C## be some collection of subsets in ##Y##. Assume that for any ##A\in\mathcal C## the inverse image ##f^{-1}(A)## belongs to ##\Sigma##. Then ##f^{-1}(B)\in\Sigma## for all ##B## in ##\Sigma(A)##, where ##\Sigma(A)## is the sigma-algebra generated by ##\mathcal C##.

One of the corollaries of the above lemma is the fact that if for a real-valued function ##f## the sets ##f^{-1}([a, \infty))## are measurable for all ##a\in\mathbb R##, then ##f^{-1}(B)## is measurable for any Borel set ##B\subset\mathbb R##. (This is also true for rays of form ##(a, \infty)##, ##(-\infty, a]##, ##(-\infty, a)##).

The proof of the lemma is quite elementary: consider the collection ##\mathcal B## of all ##B\subset Y## such that ##f^{-1}(B)\in\Sigma##. It is easy to show, using the fact that ##\Sigma## is a sigma-algebra, that ##\mathcal B## is also a sigma-algebra. Therefore ##\Sigma(\mathcal C) \subset\mathcal B##, which proves the statement.

Returning to the original question, it is easy to see that if ##A\in\Sigma_1##, ##B\in\Sigma_2##, then ##\pi_b^{-1}(A\times B)## is measurable (it is ##A## if ##b\in B##, and ##\varnothing## othervise). But such sets ##A\times B## generate ##\Sigma##, so the embedding ##\pi_b## is indeed measurable.

Finally, projections of measurable sets are not always measurable. For example, a coordinate projection of a Borel measurable set in ##\mathbb R^2## is not necessarily Borel. It is a so-called Souslin (a.k.a. analytic) set, but generally it is not Borel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K