0
$\begingroup$

Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two measures on the $\sigma$-Borel set $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{D}^n)$.

We say that $\mu$ is a representing measure for some point $z \in \mathbb{D}^n$, if

$$\forall_{u \in A(\mathbb{D}^n)} \quad u(z) = \int u d\mu$$

where $A(\mathbb{D}^n)$ is the polydisc algebra.

We say that $\nu$ is singular with respect to $\mu$, if there are such two disjoint sets $A, B \subset \mathbb{D}^n$ that $A \cup B = \mathbb{D}^n$ and $\nu(A) = 0$, $\mu(B) = 0$. We denote $\nu \perp \mu$.

A null set is a non-zero set $E$ with measure zero. In this case, because we are in the $n$ dimensional case, we will be talking of $E := E_1 \times \ldots \times E_n$, where $E_i$ is a null-set each.

My question:

Is it always the case, that a measure $\nu$ singular with respect to all representing measures $\mu$ for some point $z \in \mathbb{D}^n$ is always concentrated on $E$?

I tried finding some information about this topic, but unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any papers which could be useful for me, even after searching for hours. I really hope someone will be able to help me here.

The only thing I've found is that the singular measure from the Lebesgue decomposition is concentrated on null sets, but here, I am talking about a specific case of a singular measure (not related to the Lebesgue decomposition at all).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Are you only interested in null sets $E$ which are products of null sets? Not every null set is of this form. The answer below is just the trivial observation that null subsets of the polydics need not project down to null sets in each coordinate $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Nov 23 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ Also, if z is in the interior of the polydisc, every $\mu_z$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure, so your question simplifies (which is probably why you did not find references for it) $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Nov 23 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi I am only interested in null sets, which are products of null sets. $\endgroup$
    – S-F
    Commented Nov 23 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ In that case, then your question trivializes, for the reasons mentioned in my comment. Not every null set has this form; so any null set which is not of this form immediately gives a counterexample. $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Nov 23 at 20:33

0

You must log in to answer this question.