Does the existence of (left) Haar measure on a locally compact topological group require that the group be Hausdorff?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, you can do the usual construction on the Kolmogorov quotient (which is locally compact Hausdorff) and pull the measure back on the original group. $\endgroup$ – François G. Dorais Apr 28 '10 at 3:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I'm not sure about "pull the measure back". Generally one can push measures forward though. $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Dec 29 '12 at 23:56
  • $\begingroup$ The group on 2 elements with the indiscrete topology is locally compact, I think it has a Haar measure for any definition I can think of. Anyway, the question is unclear since "Haar measure" should be defined in a way that the question makes sense. $\endgroup$ – YCor Mar 6 '17 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ToddTrimble since Borel subsets of a topological group are invariant by the closure of $\{1\}$, the definition of "pull the measure back" is clear. In general, if $f:X\to Y$ is a map and you have a $\sigma$-algebra and measure on $Y$, the pull-back of the $\sigma$-algebra is the set of $f^{-1}(B)$, $B$ in the $\sigma$-algebra of $Y$, and the measure is clearly defined. This construction is quite trivial and uninteresting but precisely is fine for this question. $\endgroup$ – YCor Mar 6 '17 at 4:02
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor: You say that "the measure is clearly defined". Could you please make this part explicit for the slower ones of us ("lourds d'esprit")? I believe that the pullback measure should be $(f^* \mu) (B) = \mu (f (B))$, and it is not clear why $f(B)$ should be Borel when $B$ is Borel, and why this should give a measure. Or am I misunderstanding what "pullback measure" is supposed to mean here? $\endgroup$ – Alex M. Apr 6 '18 at 20:52

No. Simon Rubinstein-Salzedo's "On the existence and uniqueness of invariant measures on locally-compact groups" presents a proof of existence (and uniqueness up to a multiplicative strictly positive constant) of a left Haar measure given a locally-compact, not necessarily Hausdorff, group.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know what definition of Radon measure he is using in that paper? A Borel measure that is locally finite and inner regular? $\endgroup$ – Beren Sanders Apr 28 '10 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know of any other definition. (Is there one?) $\endgroup$ – Jason Dyer Apr 28 '10 at 4:28
  • $\begingroup$ Of course there is another definition. In fact, "Radon Measure" comes originally from Bourbaki, where it is defined as a certain type of linear functional. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Apr 28 '10 at 10:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @JasonDyer This comment is 7 years late: in Definition 5 of page 2 of that link one finds the notation $\mathcal{O}$ used to denote the collection of open sets, and on the 2nd to last line of page 3 it is thereby said that if $O$ is open and $K$ is a compact subset then $O \cap K^c$ is open. That is tantamount to knowing compact sets are closed. How does one know such closedness if the group is not assumed to be Hausdorff? $\endgroup$ – nfdc23 Mar 6 '17 at 1:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @nfdc23 Isn't the property used in the paper actually equivalent (rather than just tantamount) to all compact sets being closed? It is asserted to work for all open sets $O$. So if we take $O$ to be the whole group, then the assertion is that $K$ compact implies $K^c$ open, right? If all compact sets are closed then the space is $T_1$. But topological groups are always completely regular. And comp. reg. + $T_1$ implies Hausdorff. $\endgroup$ – Linden Jun 30 '17 at 19:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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