0

Consider a locally compact group $G$ and a compact, closed subgroup $H$. It is well known that we have a Haar measure $\mu$ on $G$ and can then construct a left-invariant measure on $G/H$, which, as far as chapter 2 of Follands "A course in Abstract Harmonic" is concerned, satisfies $$ \int_G f\,d\nu=\int_{G/H}\int_{H} f(g\xi)\,d\nu(\xi)\,d\nu(gH).$$ This is theorem 2.49 in the forementioned book. Now I wonder what would happen, if, just like it is the case for $\mathbb{R}^k$ and the stabilizer of the addition, $H$ was a nullset. Then above equality cannot hold, since the inner integral would always be $0$. How do I solve this problem? Do I even need to solve it or is this example just way too pathological? Can $H$ be a nullset whilst being more than a singleton set?

Sellerie
  • 553
  • 1
    Which section of Folland are you referring to? Not a good idea in general to say "you can find this somewhere in a 300 pages book". Are you sure that the inside integral is not with respect to the Haar measure on H? – N. S. Sep 25 '18 at 19:08
  • You are quite right, I haven't though about that. Sorry to have made you look yourself. – Sellerie Sep 25 '18 at 19:21
  • No worry, I am a bit more familiar with Reiter-Stegeman than Folland, but it was easy to find. – N. S. Sep 25 '18 at 19:29

1 Answers1

3

If I understand right, you refer to Theorem 2.49 in Folland, but you wrote it wrong. Note that the result says that $$\int_G f\,d\nu=\int_{G/H}\int_{H} f(g\xi)\, {\bf d \xi}\,d\nu(gH).$$

The mistake you are making is that the inside integral $\int_{H} f(g\xi)\, {\bf d \xi}$ is calculated with respect to the Haar measure on $H$, not on $G$.

For example, if $G= \mathbb R$ and $H= \mathbb Z$ the formula becomes $$\int_\mathbb{R} f(x)\,d x=\int_{\mathbb R/ \mathbb Z} \left( \sum_{n \in \mathbb Z} f(n+y) \right) d \theta_{\mathbb R/ \mathbb Z}(y+\mathbb Z)$$

This formula holds for compactly supported continuous functions on $\mathbb R$. It also holds for $L^1(\mathbb R)$ with the small issue that the inside integral (sum in this case) only exists for almost all $y+\mathbb Z \in \mathbb R/\mathbb Z$.

P.S. Very likely you assumed implicitly that the Haar measure on $H$ is the restriction to $H$ of the Haar measure on $G$. While this holds if $H$ is open in $G$, it cannot hold in general exactly for the reason you mentioned: $H$ can have zero measure in $G$. Just compare the Haar measure on $\mathbb Z$ and $\mathbb R$.

N. S.
  • 132,525
  • Yes, this was the (incorrect) assumption I made. Is your condition of $H$ being open of the "if and only if" type or does this work all the time on non zero measure $H$? Maybe generally speaking if $G$ is unimodular? – Sellerie Sep 25 '18 at 19:20
  • @Sellerie The answer is yes, see the answer to this question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1335588/what-prevents-the-restriction-of-a-haar-measure-to-a-closed-subgroup-from-being – N. S. Sep 25 '18 at 19:27
  • I stumbled upon this today while checking out the "related" column on another question. And learned something :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Oct 20 '22 at 17:48