4
$\begingroup$

Hello there,

This is probably very easy but I can't find an argument.

Call a function $f: R^n \to R$ monotone increasing if $x_i \le y_i$ for each $1 \le i \le n$ implies $f(x) \le f(y)$.

I'd like to show that such a function is measurable; I'd be very surprised if this is not the case.

If $n=1$ it's ok, for the set $f^{-1}(-\infty,c)$ is either empty or an interval. I thought about studying each section of $f$, that is, fix e.g. $\hat{x}_1=(x_2,\ldots,x_n)$, then $f_{\hat{x}_1}(x) := f(x,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$ is monotone, hence measurable. Similarly any section is measurable. But it seems this is not sufficient to conclude...

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I think this appears as an exercise in Geoffrey Grimmett's Probability on Graphs. $\endgroup$ Jun 21, 2013 at 0:31

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

We use induction on $n$. For $n=1$ this is trivial. Otherwise, suppose $f : \mathbb{R}^{n+1} \to \mathbb{R}$ is monotone increasing, fix $a \in \mathbb{R}$, and define $g : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ by $g(x) = \inf\{t \in \mathbb{R} : f(x,t) \ge a\}$. Then $g$ is monotone decreasing. By the induction hypothesis, $g$ is Lebesgue measurable. So the epigraph $E = \{(x,t) : t > g(x)\}$ is Lebesgue measurable, and the graph $G = \{(x,t) : g(x) = t\}$ is Lebesgue null (Fubini's theorem). However, $E \triangle\ \{f \ge a\} \subset G$ so $\{f \ge a\}$ is Lebesgue measurable.

$\endgroup$
0
5
$\begingroup$

This does not work for Borel measurability even in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. To see this, let $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, and let $R_{A}\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ be the set $\{(x,y)|-x<y\}\cup\{(x,-x)|x\in A\}$.` Then $R_{A}$ is an upward-closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. Let $f_{A}:\mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be the function where $f_{A}(z)=1$ whenever $z\in R_{A}$ and $f_{A}(z)=0$ otherwise. Then $f_{A}$ is monotone increasing, but $f_{A}$ is Borel measurable if and only if $A$ is a Borel subset of $\mathbb{R}$. I suspect that every monotone map $f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is Lebesgue measurable in the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure, but I do not yet have a proof (I will get back to you if I find a proof). And Nate Eldredge beat me to the proof for the Lebesgue measurable case.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, your example is interesting too and complements the story. I tried to accept both answers but it doesn't work. Thanks anyway :) Small typo: you meant $z \in R_A$. $\endgroup$
    – lonewolf
    Jun 21, 2013 at 10:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.