2

If $\mu$ is a measure on a ring $R$, $A\subset E$ where $E\in \sigma(R)$ and $\mu^*(E)<\infty$, then $A$ is $\mu^*$ measurable if and only if $\mu^*(E) = \mu^*(A) + \mu^*(E-A)$ (1).

I would like to prove the $\Leftarrow$ implication, but I'm lost on what I have to consider. Specifically, if (1) holds I have to prove

$$ \mu^*(B) = \mu^*(B\cap A) + \mu^*(B\cap A^c) $$

for all $B\in\mathcal{H}(R)$ ($\supset \sigma(R)$). My problem is that I don't know how to relate $B$ with equation (1). For sure $B = (B\cap A)\cup (B\cap A^c)$, but more than that I wouldn't know how to continue.

EDIT:

So this is how far I am right now. I don't know if it's ok the reasoning though.

Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the hereditary class of sets that can be countably covered by elements of a ring $\mathcal{R}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the class of $\mu^*$-measurable sets, i.e. $H\in \mathcal{H}$ is $\mu^*$-measurable in case

$$ \mu^*(B) = \mu^*(B\cap H) + \mu^*(B\cap H^c) $$

for all $B\in \mathcal{H}$. The following chain is known $\sigma(R)\subset \mathcal{M} \subset \mathcal{H}$. Thus, $E$ is $\mu^*$-measurable, i.e.

$$ \mu^*(B) = \mu^*(B\cap E) + \mu^*(B\cap E^c). $$

If we can prove $\mu^*(B) \geq \mu^*(B\cap A) + \mu^*(B\cap A^c)$ then we are done. Since $E = (E-A) \cup A$ we have

\begin{equation} \begin{split} \mu^*(B) &= \mu^*[B\cap((E-A) \cup A)] + \mu^*(B\cap E^c)\\ &\geq \mu^*(B\cap A) + \mu^*(B\cap E^c).\\ \end{split} \end{equation}

Up to here, I haven't used condition (1), so I guess one needs to use it in writting $E^c$ as a "function" of $A^c$ but I'm lost on how to write this relationship.

user2820579
  • 2,389
  • But what is the relationship between $B,A,E$? – user2820579 Jul 08 '22 at 12:19
  • I have posted an answer explaining. The measure space formed by $(X,\mathcal{M},\mu)$ formed by restricting $\mu^{}$ to the collection of $\mu^$ measurable sets is a complete measure space. Hence a set with outer measure $0$ is automatically $\mu^*$ measurable. Couple that with union of measurable sets are measurable and you have what you need. – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 08 '22 at 12:24
  • But can you do it without $R_{\sigma\delta}$? I would be very interested because my book doesn't need this in order to prove the claim. – user2820579 Jul 08 '22 at 12:36
  • Umm, I'll have to think if there is....the way I solved it when I learnt measure theory was to as I said, produce a measurable set with outer measure equal to that of $A$ . Now as you would know that describing measurable sets are a pain. So generally when you are given a collection of sets (like the ring you are given here) , you would want to make use of it because you know the measure of them (Similar to what we do for intervals in $\Bbb{R}$) . You can perhaps name/link the book you are using . – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 08 '22 at 12:58
  • Absolutely, it is "Measure Theory" by Berberian Sterling, AMS ed. – user2820579 Jul 08 '22 at 13:22
  • Exercise 3, page 21. – user2820579 Jul 08 '22 at 13:52

1 Answers1

1

See here for a similar question on Lebesgue Measure .

I am going to cheat a little and use the notations of the question that I linked . So in your question I am going to replace $E$ with $M$ and $A$ with $E$ .

So reformulated your question becomes

If $\mu$ is a measure on a ring $R$, $E\subset M$ where $M\in \sigma(R)$ and $\mu^*(M)<\infty$, then $E$ is $\mu^*$ measurable if and only if $\mu^*(M) = \mu^*(E) + \mu^*(M-E)$ (1).

There exists a $R_{\sigma\delta}$ set $G$ such that $\mu^*(M-E)=\mu^*(G)$ . See Royden page $351$ for a proof. Otherwise you can try it yourself. It is almost exactly the same as showing for any set $E$ of finite Lebesgue outer measure there exists a $G_{\delta}$ set $G$ such that $\lambda^*(G) =\lambda^* (E)$ .

Then $M-E\subset M\cap G\subset G$ and hence $\mu^{*}(M-E)\leq \mu(M\cap G)\leq \mu(G) = \mu^{*}(M-E)\implies \mu^{*}(M-E)=\mu(M\cap G)$ .

As $M\cap G$ is measurable we have by Caratheodory cut condition on $M\cup G$ with $M$

$M\cap(M\cap G)= M\cup G$ and $M\cap(M\cap G)^{c}=M-G$

So $\mu(M)=\mu(M\cup G)+\mu(M-G)=\mu^{*}(M-E)+\mu(M-G)$ .

Now $\mu^*(M-E)=\mu(G)$ and we have the following claim that if $E$ is measurable and $F$ is any set then $\mu^{*}(E\cup F)+\mu^{*}(E\cap F)=\mu(E)+\mu^{*}(F)$ (You can prove this by using Cut condition on $E\cup F$ and $ F$ and is a standard result if you already know it. It is widely used in probability) . Now using this result for $E\subset F$ and $F-E$ to get $\mu^{*}(E\cup(F-E))+\mu^{*}(E\cap(F-E))=\mu^{*}(F)+\mu^{*}(\emptyset)=\mu(E)+\mu^{*}(F-E)$

Hence we have for $E$ measurable and $E\subset F$ that $\mu^{*}(F)=\mu(E)+\mu^{*}(F-E)$

Thus we have $\mu(M)-\mu^{*}(M-E)=\mu^{*}(E)$ and this would mean $\mu^{*}(E)=\mu(M-G)$

Thus we have a measurable set $M-G$ whose measure equals the outer measure of $E$ and $\mu^{*}(E)<\infty$ .

This means that $\mu^{*}(E-(M-G))=\mu^{*}(E)-\mu^{*}(M-G)=0$ (Using the claim) and hence $E-(M-G)$ is of measure $0$ and hence measurable. (Use the fact that the measure space obtained by restricting the outer measure to the sigma algebra of the $\mu^{*}$ measurable sets forms a complete measure space see Royden page 349 )

This means $E=(E-(M-G))\cup (M-G)$ is measurable.

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, if $\mu(M)>0$ and $E=M$ (which is possible), then since $ \mu^$ restricted to $\sigma(R)$ is a measure implies that $M$ is $\mu^$-measurable. Why $E\subsetneq M$, being in $\sigma(R)$, need condition(1) in order to be $\mu^*$-measurable? – user2820579 Jul 08 '22 at 14:22
  • I have changed notation in the beginning . $E$ (a proper subset) need not be in $\sigma(R)$. M is in $\sigma(R)$ as in the assumption. – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 08 '22 at 15:20
  • Also $\sigma(R)$ need not be a sigma algebra (unless $R$ contains the whole space $X$) . So it coupled with $\mu$ is not necessarily a measure space. The point is that you can extend $\mu$ from $R$ by first constructing the outer measure $\mu^{}$ and then characterize the $\mu^{}$ measurable sets( Which satisfy the Cut condition) and then see that the $\mu^{}$ measurable sets form a sigma algebra and then say that $(X,\mathcal{F}_{\mu^{}},\mu)$ is a measure space. – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 08 '22 at 15:25
  • 1
    Ah I see now. Berberian has defined measures on rings itself. However modern books have much different definitions. Usually one defines just a set function defined on a collection of sets and we then extend to a pre-measure and then a measure. We usually define a "pre-measure" on a semi-ring and then extend using Caratheodory Hahn Theorem. – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 08 '22 at 15:32
  • Last question: "$E$ (a proper subset) need not be in $\sigma(R)$", can you give an example for it? Can you do it for instance with the $\sigma$-ring generated by the class of all semiclosed intervals $[a,b)$ in $\mathbb{R}$? – user2820579 Jul 09 '22 at 09:23
  • 1
    Yes obviously. The $\sigma$ ring generated by them is precisely what is called the Borel $\sigma$ algebra (Because $\bigcup_{n\in\Bbb{Z}}[n,n+1)=\Bbb{R}$ lies in the sigma ring and hence it is a sigma-algebra . If a set $A\subset\Bbb{R}$ has positive outer measure then there exists a non-(Lebesgue)measurable subset of $A$ (obtained by translating a vitali set) . There are many answers in this site regarding this . Also going a step further, we can also have (using the Cantor function) a Lebesgue measurable set which is not Borel Measurable. So there are plenty of such examples. – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 09 '22 at 09:52
  • 1
    And @user2820579 I gave some thought to approaching the problem without invoking the structure of the sigma ring but I could not come up with anything that implicitly did not depend on it. So what I can suggest to you is to wait if any others post an answer different from mine or you can set a bounty to the question . Meanwhile I have upvoted. Hopefully it will attract more users ! – Mr.Gandalf Sauron Jul 09 '22 at 09:58