Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Regularizing measures

  1. Oct 10, 2008 #1
    Reading Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis, a question in the .pdf attached.
    (and no pressure about using the built-in Latex, please)
    Laura
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 10, 2008 #2

    morphism

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Can you explain how you're "regularizing" [itex]\mu[/itex]?

    No. There are examples of Borel measures on [itex]\sigma[/itex]-compact (even on compact) spaces which fail to be regular.
     
  4. Oct 10, 2008 #3
    [itex]\mu[/itex] is associated with a bounded linear functional by [itex]\Phi(f) = \int_Xfd\mu[/itex]. Then by the Riesz representation theorem, if X is locally compact & Hausdorff, [itex]\Phi[/itex] is associated with a regular measure [itex]\mu^\prime[/itex] by [itex]\Phi(f) = \int_Xfd\mu^\prime[/itex]. So [itex]\int_Xfd(\mu-\mu^\prime)=0,[/itex] all [itex]f[/itex] in [itex]C_0(X)[/itex].
    So the question is, how much does this say about the measure [itex]\mu-\mu^\prime[/itex]? Under what circumstances is it 0, so that all the complex measures on X are regular?
    If X is locally compact and Hausdorff can this still happen? example?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2008
  5. Oct 10, 2008 #4
    The argument in Rudin's RACA for why the regular complex measure in the Riesz Representation theorem is unique, does apply just to regular measures. That's because the theorem that [itex]C_c(X)[/itex] (continuous fctns on X with compact support) is dense in [itex]L^p(\mu)[/itex] for [itex]1\le p [/itex]< [itex]\infty[/itex] just applies to regular measures.
    From a theorem in Rudin's RACA, if [itex]X[/itex] is locally compact and Hausdorff, and every open set is [itex]\sigma[/itex]-compact, and [itex]\mu[/itex] is a complex Borel measure on [itex]X[/itex], [itex]|\mu|[/itex] is regular.
    So I'm still wondering about regularizing complex measures, as described above, so that you get a new regular complex measure which gives the same integrals on [itex]C_0(X)[/itex]. How similar is the new measure? any examples of what happens with this process?
    Laura
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  6. Oct 12, 2008 #5

    morphism

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The standard example is X=[0,w] where w is the first uncountable ordinal. This is an exercise in Rudin (last one in chapter 2 if you have the first edition).

    As for your other question, I don't really know what happens in general. I'll think about it some more and let you know if I come up with anything.
     
  7. Oct 12, 2008 #6
    Yeah, I was wondering if regularizing a measure this way is something that's mathematically useful, that you would get a measure that gives the same integrals (a lot of the time at least) but is better behaved. In the usual sensible spaces, all the complex measures are regular anyway, so maybe the measures that aren't regular are mostly weird counterexamples that people don't care about regularizing.
    Laura
     
  8. Oct 14, 2008 #7
    see attached .pdf
    Laura
     

    Attached Files:

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Regularizing measures
  1. Regularity condition (Replies: 2)

Loading...