2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to write a brief introduction to the Lebesgue integration in $\mathbb{R}^m$ from the general viewpoint. The students do not specialize in this field. So I formulate a theorem without proof.

Theorem. In $\mathbb{R}^m$ there is a $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma$ and a measure $\mu:\Sigma\to [0,\infty]$ such that

  1. the space of continuous functions with compact support $C_0(\mathbb{R}^m)$ is dense in $L^1(\mu,\mathbb{R}^m)$;
  2. the Lebesgue integral matches with the Riemann integral on the space $C_0(\mathbb{R}^m)$;
  3. if $A\subset B\in\Sigma$ and $\mu(B)=0$ then $A\in\Sigma$.

Almost all goes nice but I can not deduce the equality $\mu(D)=\mu(D+h),\quad D\in\Sigma,\quad h\in\mathbb{R}^m$ from this theorem. I actually can not prove that $D+h$ is measurable whenever $D$ is measurable.

For example let $I_D\in L^1$ then we have $\psi_i\to I_D$ almost everywhere and in $L^1,\quad \psi_i\in C_0(\mathbb{R}^m)$. This implies that $\psi_i\to I_D$ pointwise in $\mathbb{R}^m\smallsetminus Q,\quad\mu(Q)=0$. Then $\widetilde\psi_i(x)=\psi_i(x-h)\to I_{D+h}$ pointwise in $\mathbb{R}^m\smallsetminus (Q+h)$. And I am stuck since the next step requires information on whether $Q+h$ is measurable.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems like your axioms underspecify what the sigma algebra is. Surely you need some natural hypotheses on it (such as: contains every open set / contains every compact set / complete in some sense etc). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 13:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ One way is to prove a convenient uniqueness result, so that the equality follows because $D\mapsto \mu(D+h)$ also satisfies 1,2,3. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 19:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think you have made matters more complicated in an attempt to simplify them. One now has to fight the ghosts of extensions of Lebesgue measure to larger $\sigma$-algebras, an issue that is completely avoided in the usual approach. Of course, the question itself is still valid and interesting, but the approach doesn't feel like a good "easy" introduction to the subject. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 19:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I also suspect this is false, though I'm admittedly anything but sure about the technical details. Basic idea: take the standard non-measurable subset $A\subseteq\mathbb R$ and extend Lebesgue measure to the larger $\sigma$-algebra obtained by including this set, with $\mu(A)=0$. I don't think this $\sigma$-algebra will be translation invariant. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 19:55
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelGreinecker: I would give the set measure zero, so the indicator function is not even a new element of $L^1$ (it is $=0$ a.e.). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 21:37

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .