Absolute continuity of a Borel measure
This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.
Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.
(a) Prove that $mu ll m$.
(b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.
My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)
Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.
(b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.
Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?
real-analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure absolute-continuity
add a comment |
This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.
Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.
(a) Prove that $mu ll m$.
(b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.
My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)
Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.
(b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.
Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?
real-analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure absolute-continuity
add a comment |
This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.
Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.
(a) Prove that $mu ll m$.
(b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.
My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)
Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.
(b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.
Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?
real-analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure absolute-continuity
This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.
Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.
(a) Prove that $mu ll m$.
(b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.
My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)
Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.
(b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.
Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?
real-analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure absolute-continuity
real-analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure absolute-continuity
edited Nov 27 '18 at 16:01
Davide Giraudo
125k16150259
125k16150259
asked Feb 19 '18 at 8:17
bellcircle
1,332411
1,332411
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.
Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
$$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$
The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
$$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.
In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
$$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.
add a comment |
I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
end{equation}
For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
end{equation}
I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2656640%2fabsolute-continuity-of-a-borel-measure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.
Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
$$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$
The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
$$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.
In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
$$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.
add a comment |
You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.
Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
$$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$
The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
$$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.
In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
$$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.
add a comment |
You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.
Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
$$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$
The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
$$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.
In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
$$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.
You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.
Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
$$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$
The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
$$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.
In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
$$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.
answered Nov 27 '18 at 16:15
Umberto P.
38.5k13064
38.5k13064
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
end{equation}
For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
end{equation}
I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.
add a comment |
I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
end{equation}
For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
end{equation}
I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.
add a comment |
I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
end{equation}
For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
end{equation}
I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.
I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
end{equation}
For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
begin{equation}
frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
end{equation}
I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.
answered Nov 27 '18 at 16:20
Max
1187
1187
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2656640%2fabsolute-continuity-of-a-borel-measure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown