MHB What is the maximal function of a finite Borel measure on $\Bbb R^n$?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Euge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2017
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the maximal function of a finite Borel measure on $\Bbb R^n$, defined as the supremum of the ratio of the measure of balls to their Lebesgue measure. It is established that if the Borel measure is mutually singular with respect to the Lebesgue measure, then the maximal function equals infinity almost everywhere with respect to the measure. The problem remains unanswered by participants, prompting the poster to share their own solution. The implications of the findings highlight the relationship between Borel measures and Lebesgue measures in terms of their singularity. This topic emphasizes the significance of understanding measure theory in mathematical analysis.
Euge
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
Messages
2,072
Reaction score
245
Here is this week's POTW:

-----
Suppose $\mu$ is a finite Borel measure on $\Bbb R^n$. Define the maximal function of $\mu$ by $$\mathcal{M}\mu(x) = \sup_{0 < r < \infty} \frac{\mu(B(x;r))}{m(B(x;r))}\quad (x\in \Bbb R^n)$$ Here, $m$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $\Bbb R^n$. Show that if $\mu$ is mutually singular with respect to $m$ (i.e., $\mu \perp m$), then $\mathcal{M}\mu = \infty$ a.e. $[\mu]$.-----

Remember to read the http://www.mathhelpboards.com/showthread.php?772-Problem-of-the-Week-%28POTW%29-Procedure-and-Guidelines to find out how to http://www.mathhelpboards.com/forms.php?do=form&fid=2!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No one answered this week's problem. You can read my solution below.
It suffices to show that the symmetric derivative $D\mu = \infty$ a.e. [$\mu$]. As $\mu\perp m$, there is a Borel set $A \subset \Bbb R^d$ such that $m(A) = 0 = \mu(\Bbb R^d \setminus A)$. Then $D\mu(x) = \infty$ for all $x\in A\setminus \cup A_n$, where $A_n$ consists of all $x\in A$ for which there is a sequence $r_k \to 0$ such that $\mu(B(x;r_k)) < n\, m(B(x;r_k))$ for all $k$.

By regularity of $\mu$, there are open sets $O_k$ containing $A$ such that $m(O_k) < 3^{-k}$ for all $k$. Letting $n$ and $k$ be fixed, we observe that for each $x\in A_n$, there is an open ball $B(x) \subset O_k$ containing $x$ such that $\mu(B(x)) < n\, m(B(x))$. Let $\Sigma_{k,n}$ be the union of the balls $(1/3)B(x)$ as $x$ ranges over $A_n$. If $K$ is a fixed compact subset of $\Sigma_{k,n}$, then $K$ is covered by finitely many of the balls $(1/3)B(x)$. By a covering lemma, there is a finite set $S$ such that the collection $\{B(x) : x\in S\}$ covers $K$ and $\{(1/3)B(x):x\in S\}$ is disjoint. Now

$$\mu(K) \le \sum_{x\in S} \mu(B(x)) < n \sum_{x\in S} m(B(x)) = 3^d n \sum_{x\in S} m((1/3)B(x)) \le 3^d n\, m(O_j) < 3^{d-j}n$$

By regularity of $\mu$, $\mu(\Sigma_{k,n}) \le 3^{d-j}n$. If $\Sigma_n := \cap_k \Sigma_{k,n}$, then $D\mu(x) = \infty$ for every $x\in A \setminus \cup \Sigma_n$ and $\mu(\Sigma_n) = 0$ for all $n$. Hence, $D\mu = \infty$ a.e. [$\mu$].