3
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ a set, and $\mathcal{P}(X)$ the class of its subset's. Let $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{P}(X)$, we call a map $L: \mathcal{P}(X)\to[0, \infty]$ $\mathcal{A}$-regular if for any $S\subset X$ we have $L(S)= inf_{S\subset A\in \mathcal{A}} L(A)$.

A map $L: \mathcal{P}(X)\to[0, \infty]$ is called a outer-measure if

$L(\emptyset)=0$, $A\subset B\Rightarrow L(A)\leq L(B)$, $L(\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb{N}} A_n) \leq \sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} L(A_n)$

Form a outer-measure $L$ we have the Carathéodory's construction associated measure: $(X, \mathcal{A}_L, \mu_L)$ where $\mathcal{A}_L$ is the class of subset $A\subset X$ such that $\forall S\subset X: L(S)=L(S\setminus A)+ L(S\cap A)$, and $\mu_L$ is the restriction of $L$.

Let $\mu: \mathcal{A}\to[0, \infty[$ a real finite ($\sigma$-additive) measure on a a $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{P}(X)$, we can define the associated outer-measure $\mu^\ast: \mathcal{P}(X)\to[0, \infty]$ as $\mu^\ast(S):= inf_{S\subset A\in \mathcal{A}} \mu(A)$. It is well know that if $(X, \mathcal{A'}, \mu')$ is its Carathéodory' constructiuon then $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{A'}$ and $\mu$ is the restriction of $\mu'$, and $\mu^\ast$ is $\mathcal{A}$-regular and then $\mathcal{A'}$-regular.

THen I ask: If I have a outer measure $L$ as above

and its Carathéodory's construction $(X, \mathcal{A}_L, \mu_L)$

is $L$ a $\mathcal{A}_L$-regular map?

Motive of the question: I try to study a (a adjoint functors pair?) correspondence between the measure and the outer measure on a set.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Given a set $X$ and outer measure $L:\mathcal{P}(X)\to [0,\infty]$, is $L$ an $\mathcal{A}_L$-regular map? The answer is No. Consider the following example:

Let $X = \mathbb{N}$ and define $L:\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}) \to [0,\infty]$ by $L(\emptyset) = 0$ and $L(F) = 1$ for $F\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ finite, and $L(S) = \infty$ for $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ infinite.

It is easy to see that $L$ is an outer measure.

Observation: If $F\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is non-empty and finite, then $F\notin \mathcal{A}_L$.

Proof : Let $F\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ be a non-empty finite set. Then let $F^*:= F \cup \{\max(F) + 1\}$. So $L(F^*) = 1$ but $L(F^*\setminus F) + L(F^*\cap F) = 2$.

Now consider the finite set $\{1\}$. We have $L(\{1\}) = 1$, but the observation above implies that for any $A\in \mathcal{A}_L$ with $\{1\} \subseteq A$ we have that $A$ is infinite, therefore $L(A) = \infty$. So $\inf\{L(A): \{1\} \subseteq A\}=\infty$, therefore $1 = L(1) \neq \inf\{L(A): \{1\} \subseteq A\}$. So $L$ is not $\mathcal{A}_L$-regular.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ If my answer is correct, can you tick the sign where it says "Click to accept the answer"? Thanks. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 7:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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