Why does the indicator function product equal the intersection indicator?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 2K views
jdinatale
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
I can't for the life of me figure out why the underlined sentence in red is true:

lebesguelinear.png


Could someone clarify?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That page doesn't tell us what ##E## or ##S_0(E)## represent. Nor what the canonical representation of ##\phi \in S_0(E)## is.
 
LCKurtz said:
That page doesn't tell us what ##E## or ##S_0(E)## represent. Nor what the canonical representation of ##\phi \in S_0(E)## is.

My apologies,

##E## is a measurable set.

##S_0(E)## is the set of simple functions on ##E##.

The canonical representation of ##\phi \in S_0(E)## is a linear combination of characteristic functions ##\phi = \sum_{i=1}^na_i\mathcal{X}_{E_i}##.
 
jdinatale said:
My apologies,

##E## is a measurable set.

##S_0(E)## is the set of simple functions on ##E##.

The canonical representation of ##\phi \in S_0(E)## is a linear combination of characteristic functions ##\phi = \sum_{i=1}^na_i\mathcal{X}_{E_i}##.

I'm guessing there is more to the definition of canonical representation. Maybe you are given that the ##A_i## are disjoint with each other and ##B_j## similarly. And if ##\cup_i A_i = E## and ##\cup_j B_j = E## that would explain those equations.