Notes:Halmos measure theory skeleton

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search

Skeleton

If we were to cut out all the "extra" (and useful) theorems into just the core that let us get from pre-measures to measures we would be left with what I call the "skeleton". The "core" of Halmos' measure theory book is the following:

  1. Ring of sets, R - DONE - Alec (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. σ-ring, R
  3. Measure, μ, countably additive extended real valued set function on a σ-ring, R, μ:RˉR0
  4. Pre-measure, ˉμ, countably additive extended real valued set function defined on a ring of sets, R, ˉμ:RˉR0
    • Goal 1: "extend" a pre-measure, ˉμ to a measure, μ such that (for a ring of sets R): AR[ˉμ(A)=μ(A)][Question 1]
  5. Hereditary set system - a system of sets, say H, such that AHBP(A)[BH]
  6. Outer-measure, μ - extended real valued countably subadditive monotonic set function with μ()=0
    • Theorem: for a pre-measure, ˉμ on a ring R the function:
      • μ:HˉR0
        given by μ:Ainf{n=1ˉμ(An) | (An)n=1RAn=1An}
      is an outer measure
  7. μ-measurable sets
  8. Theorem: - the set of all μ-measurable sets is a σ-ring and μ is a measure on this sigma-ring
  9. Theorem: - every set in σR(R) is μ-measurable and μ is a measure on this sigma-ring
  10. Theorem: - the measure induced on the sigma-ring of μ-measurable sets is the same as the outer measure induced by the outer-measure when restricted to the σ-ring generated by R[Question 3]
    • We haven't shown anything to do with equality of these two sigma-rings! We only show that the outer measure each induce is the same!

Questions

  1. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> Why specifically a measure? An outer-measure extends a measure to be able to measure every subset of every set in R - at the cost of it no longer being additive but instead subadditive - why do we want additivity so much? Why is subadditivity not good enough? Obviously it's a weaker property as additivity subadditivity
  2. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> Suppose H(S) is the hereditary system generated by a collection of subsets, S, and σR(S) the σ-ring generated by S, is it true that:
    • H(σR(S))=σR(H(S))?
    The book makes it clear that it intends to use:
    • H(σR(S))
  3. <cite_references_link_accessibility_label> I could phrase this better

Old notes

[Expand]

These notes were "too long" I need to compress it into steps.