3

If $\mu$ is Lebesgue measure on the Borel sigma algebra $\mathcal{B}$ of $[0,1]$. Establishing that the linear span in $L^{2}([0,1]\times[0,1],\mathcal{B}\otimes\mathcal{B},d(\mu \times \mu))$ of the set of measurable functions of the form $(f \otimes g)(x,y)=f(x)g(y)$ where $f\in L^{\infty}([0,1],d\mu)$ and $g\in L^{\infty}([0,1],d\mu)$ is dense is a standard application of the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem.

I've always felt that the presence of so many characteristic functions in the dense algebra mentioned above ought to make the use of Stone-Weierstrass overkill to obtain the above result.

I wonder if it is easy to use the outer regularity of the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$ along with the fact that any open subset of $[0,1]$ is a countable union of pairwise disjoint open intervals to directly prove the above result without the use of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, perhaps by proving that functions can be approximated adequately using simple functions supported on elementary sets (finite unions of pairwise disjoint measurable rectangles).

Question: What is an easy elementary proof of the above density result that does not require or reduce essentially to the use of the Stone-Weierstrass theorem?

Filling in the details of the proposed strategy of Davide below would be great!

Henno Brandsma
  • 242,131
Jon Bannon
  • 3,171
  • 1
    The functional monotone class theorem is a nice purely measure-theoretic way of establishing the result (see example (4) in the linked notes). Its proof is very close to some arguments in the Weierstrass theorem, though. On the other hand, it does not use topology, so it is more aesthetically pleasing. – Martin Jul 31 '13 at 22:44
  • To supplement the comment, here's a link to the monotone class theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotone_class_theorem – Jon Bannon Jul 31 '13 at 22:51
  • @Martin: Actually, I'm quite happy that you've pointed to an argument that is purely measure-theoretic. I've actually been trying to work with the monotone class theorem claim for product sigma algebras as appearing in Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis...maybe what I've been looking for is what you've linked to...if I translate things into the non-functional version. Thanks for the link! – Jon Bannon Jul 31 '13 at 22:58
  • 1
    Try having a look at the "approximation by really simple functions" method that you find in Lieb & Loss "Analysis", 2nd ed., at the end of the first chapter. – Giuseppe Negro Jul 31 '13 at 23:12
  • Thanks, Giuseppe! I can see that section on Google Books. It seems to have to do with that functional monotone class theorem Martin mentioned above. – Jon Bannon Jul 31 '13 at 23:13

2 Answers2

3

$1.$ The functional monotone class theorem mentioned by Martin works indeed perfectly well to prove the result. You can also prove it directly with the "standard" monotone class theorem, as follows: consider the family of all Borel sets $A\subset [0,1]\times [0,1]$ whose characteristic function can be approximated by linear combinations of functions of the form $f\otimes g$, and check that this is a monotone class containing all Borel rectangles. Although I didnt fill in all the details, I'm pretty sure that the "approximation by simple functions" result mentioned by Davide can be proved in the same way (and I don't see any way of avoiding a monotone class argument).

$2.$ You can also prove the result by duality. Let $\Phi\in L^2([0,1]\times [0,1])$ be orthogonal to all $f\otimes g$: we want to show that $\Phi=0$.

Fix once and for all a representative for $\Phi$ (i.e. a true Borel function). Note that for almost every $x\in [0,1]$, the function $\Phi_x(y)=\Phi(x,y)$ is in $L^2([0,1])$. By Fubini's theorem, it is enough to show that $\Phi_x(y)$ is a.e. $0$, for almost every $x\in [0,1]$.

If you take any $f\in L^\infty([0,1])$, then $u_f(y)=\int_{[0,1]} \Phi(x,y)f(x)dx$ is well-defined for all $y\in [0,1]$, the function $u_f$ is measurable (which is not trival) and in $L^2([0,1])$ (which is easy); and by Fubini, $u_f$ is orthogonal to all $g\in L^\infty([0,1])$. So $u_f(y)$ is $0$ almost everywhere (because $L^\infty$ is dense in $L^2$ or, if you prefer, because $\int_B u_f=0$ for any Borel set $B\subset [0,1]$). This means the following: for any fixed $f\in L^\infty$, we have $\langle \Phi_x,f\rangle_{L^2}=0$ for almost every $x\in [0,1]$. Now take a sequence $(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ which is dense in $L^2([0,1])$ (which is possible since your $L^2$ is separable and $L^\infty$ is dense in $L^2$): this leads you to the conclusion that for almost every $x\in [0,1]$, the function $\Phi_x$ is orthogonal to all $f_n$, i.e. $\Phi_x=0$ as an element of $L^2([0,1])$.

Etienne
  • 13,636
  • I think that 1. here is what needs to happen. It is easy to show that all Borel rectangles lie inside the proposed class of Borel sets, which renders it nonempty. Checking it is a monotone class will be straightforward, I agree. The MCT will get that the monotone class generated by these will agree with the sigma algebra, which is the entire product sigma algebra. This will do nicely. Thanks! – Jon Bannon Aug 01 '13 at 18:15
  • Also thanks for providing the other arguments. This was a very nice answer! – Jon Bannon Aug 01 '13 at 18:16
  • You're welcome! – Etienne Aug 01 '13 at 18:25
0

First we prove that characteristic functions of measurable sets of $[0,1]^2$ can be approximated in $L^2$ by the characteristic function of a disjoint finite union $\bigsqcup_{i\in F}A_i\times B_i$, with $A_i,B_i$ measurable subsets of $[0,1]$.

Then we prove it for simple functions, and for functions of $L^2$.

Davide Giraudo
  • 172,925
  • 1
    Thanks Davide! The devil is in the details, though. – Jon Bannon Jul 31 '13 at 21:10
  • To be more precise about the devil in the details, the finite disjoint unions you describe are elementary sets I mention in the question. The product sigma algebra is the monotone class generated by these elementary sets. It is not clear, for example, how to approximate an arbitrary such set in the way you suggest as it may be the result of taking many up-down limits of these things. – Jon Bannon Jul 31 '13 at 21:43
  • ..just please fill in the details!!!! – Jon Bannon Jul 31 '13 at 21:48