Timeline for Demystifying the Caratheodory approach to measurability
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2013 at 7:20 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 8, 2013 at 8:04 | |||||
| Nov 7, 2013 at 14:36 | history | edited | Asaf Karagila♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Addictive measures? Oh my!
|
| Apr 24, 2011 at 21:53 | comment | added | Buschi Sergio | Then I showed a (more intuitive, or more natural) approach to the extension of measure, but equivalent to the Carathodory exposure (for finite measures) – Buschi Sergio 0 secs ago | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 21:46 | comment | added | Buschi Sergio | Hi, excuse me for my poor latex and formatting and English. I presents an approach (equivalent to a classical Caratheodory) extension of a measure defined on a ring to a $\sigma$-ring, based on the simple completion of a metric space built on subsets. It 's a classic argument, but I always found it only as exercises, and I decided to tackle the various exercises and unify the various topic, then set out here, if you want I can send the original latex or PDF (I think where it is more readable) ([email protected]) | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 14:48 | comment | added | Ryan Reich | Two comments: first, this looks interesting, but it's close to unreadable. Without devoting half an hour to reading it carefully, I would have no idea what you are proving. Second: without spending the half-hour, I think you are verifying that some method (perhaps the Caratheodory one?) extends the measure to a complete $\sigma$-additive one. I don't think that's what the question was asking at all: validity is not in doubt, only the motivation behind the manipulations. | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 14:25 | history | edited | Buschi Sergio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3429 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2011 at 10:06 | history | edited | Buschi Sergio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improve latex; deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2011 at 7:18 | comment | added | Nishant Chandgotia | Thanks for the effort but it is impossible to follow the argument mainly because of the latex problems and the notation. Could you try cleaning it a little bit? | |
| Apr 23, 2011 at 12:11 | history | answered | Buschi Sergio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |