Timeline for Why are simple functions defined for positive coefficients (in measure theory) [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 1, 2012 at 5:55 | vote | accept | Adwaitvedant Mathkar | ||
| Mar 19, 2012 at 7:09 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
insert duplicate link
|
|
| Mar 19, 2012 at 7:09 | history | closed | S. Carnahan♦ | exact duplicate | |
| Mar 16, 2012 at 0:57 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I also feel I should stick up for P with M, as it was one of the texts for the course where I actually learned my measure theory. My suspicion, as seems to be borne out in the answers to which Gerald Edgar has linked, is that both ways of setting up integrals have their advantages and disadvantages. However, since I am not a probabilist, this is just conjecture on my part. | |
| Mar 16, 2012 at 0:44 | answer | added | Marc Hoyois | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:59 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | QUite close to this question: mathoverflow.net/questions/25161 | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:48 | history | edited | Yemon Choi |
retagged
|
|
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:45 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | It's a long time since I studied this, but I think one initially wants to allow for integrals of positive functions to possibly take the value "plus infinity", as it makes various statements and proofs using monotonicity easier to handle. This is only possible if you rule out infinity minus infinity types of nonsense, hence one restricts to positive integrands. I seem to recall some related discussion of this on MO. | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:40 | comment | added | Marc Palm | I am not sure what kind of answer you expect. For convenience? | |
| Mar 15, 2012 at 18:29 | history | asked | Adwaitvedant Mathkar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |