MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let X be locally compact and Hausdorff, and let $f:X\rightarrow\mathbb R$ be a function. Suppose that for all finite regular (positive) Borel measures $\mu$, we know that $f$ is $\mu$-measurable. Does it follow that $f$ is Borel? If not, what's a good counter-example?

Definitions: The Borel sigma-algebra is generated by the open sets. So $f$ is Borel if $f^{-1}(U)$ is Borel for each open $U\subseteq\mathbb R$.

I think the definition of $\mu$-measurable is that for each open $U\subseteq\mathbb R$, we have that $f^{-1}(U)$ is in the completed sigma-algebra for $\mu$. That is, we can find Borel sets $A$ and $B$ with $A \subseteq f^{-1}(U) \subseteq B$ with $\mu(B\setminus A)=0$.

Remark: The "obvious" measures are the point mass measures, but then the completed sigma-algebra is $2^X$, so all functions are measurable! So the question is, in some sense, whether $X$ supports "enough" finite regular Borel measures.

Vague motivation: This old paper of Barry Johnson: Separate continuity and measurability. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 20 1969 420--422 see But Barry's paper clearly gives me enough for what I want, so really this question is out of curiosity, not an attempt to understand the paper better!

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Let $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be the characteristic function of a subset $A \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ which is analytic but not Borel. Then $f$ is universally measurable but not Borel.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, François. It's still too early in the morning ... – Simon Thomas Apr 28 '10 at 12:44
Brilliant! I found some more details here: – Matthew Daws Apr 28 '10 at 13:51

The collection of Borel sets (or analytic sets, etc.) in $\mathbb{R}$ has power $c = 2^{\aleph_0}$. But the collection of universally measurable sets has power $2^c$. This would follow from the existence of a universal null set of power $c$.

share|cite|improve this answer
The collection of Borel sets on $\mathbb{R}$ has this cardinality, but not the collection of Borel sets on an arbitrary locally compact $X$. – Robin Chapman Apr 28 '10 at 14:12
corrected to refer to R – Gerald Edgar Apr 28 '10 at 14:15
Isn't the Borel Conjecture (which independent of ZFC) precisely the statement that every universally null set is countable? – François G. Dorais Apr 28 '10 at 14:30
No, the Borel Conjecture is the statement that every strong measure zero set is countable. – Simon Thomas Apr 28 '10 at 15:05
Actually it's consistent that there are only continuum many universally measurable sets. This is a recent result of Larson, Neeman and Shelah, see – Justin Palumbo Apr 28 '10 at 18:01

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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