Timeline for Measures with finite mass relative to a fixed measure
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 18:39 | history | edited | Rbega | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 17:09 | vote | accept | Rbega | ||
| Nov 1, 2016 at 15:27 | comment | added | Dirk | @PietroMajer That't true, but the actual question is about a similar idea for measures and I do not see how that remark helps there. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 14:59 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | As R W remarks in an answer, by these definitions, $g\in L^1_{\rm rel}[f]$ means $g-f\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$, and $I_{\rm rel}(g,f)$ is just the Lebesgue integral $\int_{ \mathbb{R}^n} (g-f) dx$. So $f$ does not play any role --it is just added and then subtracted. For the same reason, to define a "generalized relative integral" on some $\hat{L}_\text{rel}^1[f]$, one can assume $f=0$ with no loss of generality. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 14:37 | answer | added | Dirk | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 13:57 | comment | added | Rbega | @Dirk That would be natural (and maybe is the answer), but is not so well suited to situations where the measures are concentrated at different (nearby) sets. The examples I had in mind were something like Hausdorff measure of $\{x_n=0\}$ compared to Hausdorff measure of the graph of a function over this plane which rapidly decayed to zero at $\infty$. | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 13:33 | comment | added | Dirk | Wouldn't $|\nu-\mu|(B_R)$ be natural ($|\lambda|$ denoting the variation of the measure $\lambda$)? | |
| Nov 1, 2016 at 13:26 | history | edited | Rbega | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified question
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 3:55 | answer | added | R W | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 23:44 | history | edited | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I missed this one the first time.
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 23:44 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | Also, $A\backslash B$, coded as A\backslash B, does not have spacing appropriate to binary operation symbols, whereas $A\setminus B$ and $A\smallsetminus B$ do. $\qquad$ | |
| S Oct 31, 2016 at 23:44 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
better MathJax usage
|
| Oct 31, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | Note that $\|a\|\|b\|$, coded as \|a\|\|b\|, has proper spacing and $||a|| ||b||$, coded as ||a|| ||b||, does not. I fixed that and a bunch of other MathJax usage concerns while not logged in. As of a few seconds ago one more approval is awaited. | |
| Oct 31, 2016 at 23:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 31, 2016 at 23:44 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2016 at 19:40 | history | asked | Rbega | CC BY-SA 3.0 |