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

(For all of this post, at least Countable Choice is assumed to hold.)


For all Tychonoff spaces $\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle$ :

Define $\mathbf{Z}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle)$ to be the set of subsets $S$ of $X$ such that there exists a
continuous $\: f : X\to (-\infty,\scriptsize+\normalsize\infty) \:$ such that $\;\;\; \{x\in X : f(x)=0\} \; = \; S \;\;\;$.
Define $\; \operatorname{Ba}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle) \;$ to be the sigma-algebra on $X$ generated by $\mathbf{Z}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle)$.
Define $\operatorname{UM}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle)$ to be the set of subsets $S_0$ of $X$ such that
for all probability measures $\: \mu : \operatorname{Ba}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle) \to (-\infty,\scriptsize+\normalsize\infty) \:$,
there exists a member $S_1$ of $\operatorname{Ba}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle)$ such that the symmetric difference between $S_0$ and $S_1$ is $\mu$-null.
It follows that $\operatorname{UM}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}\hspace{.06 in}\rangle)$ is a sigma-algebra on $X$.


Let $\langle X,\mathcal{T}_0\rangle$ and $\langle Y,\mathcal{T}_1\rangle$ be Tychonoff spaces. $\;\;$ Let $\: \mu_0 : \operatorname{UM}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}_0\rangle) \to (-\infty,\scriptsize+\normalsize\infty) \:$
and $\: \mu_1 : \operatorname{UM}(\langle Y,\mathcal{T}_1\rangle) \to (-\infty,\scriptsize+\normalsize\infty) \:$ be probability measures. $\;\;$ Let $\mathcal{T}_2$ be the product topology
on $\: X\times Y \:$. $\;\;$ It follows that $\langle X\times Y,\mathcal{T}_2\rangle$ is a Tychonoff space and for all members $S_0$ of
$\operatorname{UM}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}_0\rangle)$, for all members $S_1$ of $\operatorname{UM}(\langle Y,\mathcal{T}_1\rangle)$, $\;\; S_0 \times S_1 \: \in \: \operatorname{UM}(\langle X\times Y,\mathcal{T}_2\rangle) \;\;$.
If there is a measurable Aleph, then there is an example where (*), defined as

there exists a unique probability measure $\: \mu_2 : \operatorname{UM}(\langle X\times Y,\mathcal{T}_2\rangle) \to (-\infty,\scriptsize+\normalsize\infty) \:$ such that
for all members $S_0$ of $\operatorname{UM}(\langle X,\mathcal{T}_0\rangle)$, for all members $S_1$ of $\operatorname{UM}(\langle Y,\mathcal{T}_1\rangle)$,
$\mu_2(S_0 \times S_1) \; = \; \mu_0(S_0) \cdot \mu_1(S_1)$

does not hold.


${}$1. $\:$ Does there provably-in-ZFC exist an example where () does not hold?
1a. $\:$ If yes, how much of AC (beyond Countable Choice) does such a proof need to use?

${}$2.
What amount of Choice (beyond Countable Choice) and/or
conditions on $\langle X,\mathcal{T}_0\rangle$ and $\langle Y,\mathcal{T}_1\rangle$ are known to force (
) to hold?


I don't know any way full AC makes this easier, and the only condition I already know for 2 is:

$\langle X,\mathcal{T}_0\rangle$ and $\langle Y,\mathcal{T}_1\rangle$ both have countable networks $\;\; \implies \;\;$ (*)

share|cite|improve this question
    
$\operatorname{Ba}$ stands for Baire (Dudley's definition, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baire_set#More_general_definitions) $\;$ – Ricky Demer Feb 1 '12 at 4:52
    
(*) says "there exists a unique" ... when if fails, do you expect existence or uniqueness to fail? – Gerald Edgar Feb 1 '12 at 15:00
    
Your "measurable cardinal" failure even happens if you use the discrete topology in the two factors, right? – Gerald Edgar Feb 1 '12 at 15:00
    
I expect uniqueness to fail. $\;$ Yes, and for that matter it happens even for a finite-(real-)valued measurable Aleph, since any such measure could be rescaled to be a probability measure. – Ricky Demer Feb 1 '12 at 21:03

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.