Hubbry Logo
Measure (mathematics)Measure (mathematics)Main
Open search
Measure (mathematics)
Community hub
Measure (mathematics)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Measure (mathematics)
Measure (mathematics)
from Wikipedia
Informally, a measure has the property of being monotone in the sense that if is a subset of the measure of is less than or equal to the measure of Furthermore, the measure of the empty set is required to be 0. A simple example is a volume (how big a space an object occupies) as a measure.

In mathematics, the concept of a measure is a generalization and formalization of geometrical measures (length, area, volume) and other common notions, such as magnitude, mass, and probability of events. These seemingly distinct concepts have many similarities and can often be treated together in a single mathematical context. Measures are foundational in probability theory, integration theory, and can be generalized to assume negative values, as with electrical charge. Far-reaching generalizations (such as spectral measures and projection-valued measures) of measure are widely used in quantum physics and physics in general.

The intuition behind this concept dates back to Ancient Greece, when Archimedes tried to calculate the area of a circle.[1][2] But it was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that measure theory became a branch of mathematics. The foundations of modern measure theory were laid in the works of Émile Borel, Henri Lebesgue, Nikolai Luzin, Johann Radon, Constantin Carathéodory, and Maurice Fréchet, among others. According to Thomas W. Hawkins Jr., "It was primarily through the theory of multiple integrals and, in particular the work of Camille Jordan that the importance of the notion of measurability was first recognized."[3]

Definition

[edit]
Countable additivity of a measure : The measure of a countable disjoint union is the same as the sum of all measures of each subset.

Let be a set and a σ-algebra over , defining subsets of that are "measurable". A set function from to the extended real number line, that is, the real number line together with new (so-called infinite) values and , respectively greater and lower than all other (so-called finite) elements, is called a measure if the following conditions hold:

  • Non-negativity: For all
  • Countable additivity (or σ-additivity): For all countable collections of pairwise disjoint sets in Σ,

If at least one set has finite measure, then the requirement is met automatically due to countable additivity:and therefore

Note that any sum involving will equal , that is, for all in the extended reals.

If the condition of non-negativity is dropped, and only ever equals one of , , i.e. no two distinct sets have measures , , respectively, then is called a signed measure.

The pair is called a measurable space, and the members of are called measurable sets.

A triple is called a measure space. A probability measure is a measure with total measure one – that is, A probability space is a measure space with a probability measure.

For measure spaces that are also topological spaces various compatibility conditions can be placed for the measure and the topology. Most measures met in practice in analysis (and in many cases also in probability theory) are Radon measures (usually defined on Hausdorff spaces). When working with locally compact Hausdorff spaces, Radon measures have an alternative, equivalent definition in terms of linear functionals on the locally convex topological vector space of continuous functions with compact support. This approach is taken by Bourbaki (2004) and a number of other sources. For more details, see the article on Radon measures.

Instances

[edit]

Some important measures are listed here.

  • The counting measure is defined by = number of elements in
  • The Lebesgue measure on is a complete translation-invariant measure on a σ-algebra containing the intervals in such that ; and every other measure with these properties extends the Lebesgue measure.
  • The arc length of interval on the unit circle in the Euclidean plane extends to a measure on the -algebra they generate. It can be called angle measure since the arc length of an interval equals the angle it supports. This measure is invariant under rotations preserving the circle. Similarly, hyperbolic angle measure is invariant under squeeze mapping.
  • The Haar measure for a locally compact topological group. For example, is such a group and its Haar measure is the Lebesgue measure; for the unit circle (seen as a subgroup of the multiplicative group of ) its Haar measure is the angle measure. For a discrete group the counting measure is a Haar measure.
  • Every (pseudo) Riemannian manifold has a canonical measure that in local coordinates looks like where is the usual Lebesgue measure.
  • The Hausdorff measure is a generalization of the Lebesgue measure to sets with non-integer dimension, in particular, fractal sets.
  • Every probability space gives rise to a measure which takes the value 1 on the whole space (and therefore takes all its values in the unit interval [0, 1]). Such a measure is called a probability measure or distribution. See the list of probability distributions for instances.
  • The Dirac measure δa (cf. Dirac delta function) is given by δa(S) = χS(a), where χS is the indicator function of The measure of a set is 1 if it contains the point and 0 otherwise.

Other 'named' measures used in various theories include: Borel measure, Jordan measure, ergodic measure, Gaussian measure, Baire measure, Radon measure, Young measure, and Loeb measure.

In physics an example of a measure is spatial distribution of mass (see for example, gravity potential), or another non-negative extensive property, conserved (see conservation law for a list of these) or not. Negative values lead to signed measures, see "generalizations" below.

  • Liouville measure, known also as the natural volume form on a symplectic manifold, is useful in classical statistical and Hamiltonian mechanics.
  • Gibbs measure is widely used in statistical mechanics, often under the name canonical ensemble.

Basic properties

[edit]

Let be a measure.

Monotonicity

[edit]

If and are measurable sets with then

Measure of countable unions and intersections

[edit]

Countable subadditivity

[edit]

For any countable sequence of (not necessarily disjoint) measurable sets in

Continuity from below

[edit]

If are measurable sets that are increasing (meaning that ) then the union of the sets is measurable and

Continuity from above

[edit]

If are measurable sets that are decreasing (meaning that ) then the intersection of the sets is measurable; furthermore, if at least one of the has finite measure then

This property is false without the assumption that at least one of the has finite measure. For instance, for each let which all have infinite Lebesgue measure, but the intersection is empty.

Other properties

[edit]

Completeness

[edit]

A measurable set is called a null set if A subset of a null set is called a negligible set. A negligible set need not be measurable, but every measurable negligible set is automatically a null set. A measure is called complete if every negligible set is measurable.

A measure can be extended to a complete one by considering the σ-algebra of subsets which differ by a negligible set from a measurable set that is, such that the symmetric difference of and is contained in a null set. One defines to equal

"Dropping the Edge"

[edit]

If is -measurable, then for almost all [4] This property is used in connection with Lebesgue integral.

Proof

Both and are monotonically non-increasing functions of so both of them have at most countably many discontinuities and thus they are continuous almost everywhere, relative to the Lebesgue measure. If then so that as desired.

If is such that then monotonicity implies so that as required. If for all then we are done, so assume otherwise. Then there is a unique such that is infinite to the left of (which can only happen when ) and finite to the right. Arguing as above, when Similarly, if and then

For let be a monotonically non-decreasing sequence converging to The monotonically non-increasing sequences of members of has at least one finitely -measurable component, and Continuity from above guarantees that The right-hand side then equals if is a point of continuity of Since is continuous almost everywhere, this completes the proof.

Additivity

[edit]

Measures are required to be countably additive. However, the condition can be strengthened as follows. For any set and any set of nonnegative define: That is, we define the sum of the to be the supremum of all the sums of finitely many of them.

A measure on is -additive if for any and any family of disjoint sets the following hold: The second condition is equivalent to the statement that the ideal of null sets is -complete.

Sigma-finite measures

[edit]

A measure space is called finite if is a finite real number (rather than ). Nonzero finite measures are analogous to probability measures in the sense that any finite measure is proportional to the probability measure A measure is called σ-finite if can be decomposed into a countable union of measurable sets of finite measure. Analogously, a set in a measure space is said to have a σ-finite measure if it is a countable union of sets with finite measure.

For example, the real numbers with the standard Lebesgue measure are σ-finite but not finite. Consider the closed intervals for all integers there are countably many such intervals, each has measure 1, and their union is the entire real line. Alternatively, consider the real numbers with the counting measure, which assigns to each finite set of reals the number of points in the set. This measure space is not σ-finite, because every set with finite measure contains only finitely many points, and it would take uncountably many such sets to cover the entire real line. The σ-finite measure spaces have some very convenient properties; σ-finiteness can be compared in this respect to the Lindelöf property of topological spaces.[original research?] They can be also thought of as a vague generalization of the idea that a measure space may have 'uncountable measure'.

Strictly localizable measures

[edit]

Semifinite measures

[edit]

Let be a set, let be a sigma-algebra on and let be a measure on We say is semifinite to mean that for all [5]

Semifinite measures generalize sigma-finite measures, in such a way that some big theorems of measure theory that hold for sigma-finite but not arbitrary measures can be extended with little modification to hold for semifinite measures. (To-do: add examples of such theorems; cf. the talk page.)

Basic examples

[edit]
  • Every sigma-finite measure is semifinite.
  • Assume let and assume for all
    • We have that is sigma-finite if and only if for all and is countable. We have that is semifinite if and only if for all [6]
    • Taking above (so that is counting measure on ), we see that counting measure on is
      • sigma-finite if and only if is countable; and
      • semifinite (without regard to whether is countable). (Thus, counting measure, on the power set of an arbitrary uncountable set gives an example of a semifinite measure that is not sigma-finite.)
  • Let be a complete, separable metric on let be the Borel sigma-algebra induced by and let Then the Hausdorff measure is semifinite.[7]
  • Let be a complete, separable metric on let be the Borel sigma-algebra induced by and let Then the packing measure is semifinite.[8]

Involved example

[edit]

The zero measure is sigma-finite and thus semifinite. In addition, the zero measure is clearly less than or equal to It can be shown there is a greatest measure with these two properties:

Theorem (semifinite part)[9]For any measure on there exists, among semifinite measures on that are less than or equal to a greatest element

We say the semifinite part of to mean the semifinite measure defined in the above theorem. We give some nice, explicit formulas, which some authors may take as definition, for the semifinite part:

  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]

Since is semifinite, it follows that if then is semifinite. It is also evident that if is semifinite then

Non-examples

[edit]

Every measure that is not the zero measure is not semifinite. (Here, we say measure to mean a measure whose range lies in : ) Below we give examples of measures that are not zero measures.

  • Let be nonempty, let be a -algebra on let be not the zero function, and let It can be shown that is a measure.
    • [12]
      • [13]
  • Let be uncountable, let be a -algebra on let be the countable elements of and let It can be shown that is a measure.[5]

Involved non-example

[edit]

Measures that are not semifinite are very wild when restricted to certain sets.[Note 1] Every measure is, in a sense, semifinite once its part (the wild part) is taken away.

— A. Mukherjea and K. Pothoven, Real and Functional Analysis, Part A: Real Analysis (1985)

Theorem (Luther decomposition)[14][15]For any measure on there exists a measure on such that for some semifinite measure on In fact, among such measures there exists a least measure Also, we have

We say the part of to mean the measure defined in the above theorem. Here is an explicit formula for :

Results regarding semifinite measures

[edit]
  • Let be or and let Then is semifinite if and only if is injective.[16][17] (This result has import in the study of the dual space of .)
  • Let be or and let be the topology of convergence in measure on Then is semifinite if and only if is Hausdorff.[18][19]
  • (Johnson) Let be a set, let be a sigma-algebra on let be a measure on let be a set, let be a sigma-algebra on and let be a measure on If are both not a measure, then both and are semifinite if and only if for all and (Here, is the measure defined in Theorem 39.1 in Berberian '65.[20])

Localizable measures

[edit]

Localizable measures are a special case of semifinite measures and a generalization of sigma-finite measures.

Let be a set, let be a sigma-algebra on and let be a measure on

  • Let be or and let Then is localizable if and only if is bijective (if and only if "is" ).[21][17]

s-finite measures

[edit]

A measure is said to be s-finite if it is a countable sum of finite measures. S-finite measures are more general than sigma-finite ones and have applications in the theory of stochastic processes.

Non-measurable sets

[edit]

If the axiom of choice is assumed to be true, it can be proved that not all subsets of Euclidean space are Lebesgue measurable; examples of such sets include the Vitali set, and the non-measurable sets postulated by the Hausdorff paradox and the Banach–Tarski paradox.

Generalizations

[edit]

For certain purposes, it is useful to have a "measure" whose values are not restricted to the non-negative reals or infinity. For instance, a countably additive set function with values in the (signed) real numbers is called a signed measure, while such a function with values in the complex numbers is called a complex measure. Observe, however, that complex measure is necessarily of finite variation, hence complex measures include finite signed measures but not, for example, the Lebesgue measure.

Measures that take values in Banach spaces have been studied extensively.[22] A measure that takes values in the set of self-adjoint projections on a Hilbert space is called a projection-valued measure; these are used in functional analysis for the spectral theorem. When it is necessary to distinguish the usual measures which take non-negative values from generalizations, the term positive measure is used. Positive measures are closed under conical combination but not general linear combination, while signed measures are the linear closure of positive measures. More generally see measure theory in topological vector spaces.

Another generalization is the finitely additive measure, also known as a content. This is the same as a measure except that instead of requiring countable additivity we require only finite additivity. Historically, this definition was used first. It turns out that in general, finitely additive measures are connected with notions such as Banach limits, the dual of and the Stone–Čech compactification. All these are linked in one way or another to the axiom of choice. Contents remain useful in certain technical problems in geometric measure theory; this is the theory of Banach measures.

A charge is a generalization in both directions: it is a finitely additive, signed measure.[23] (Cf. ba space for information about bounded charges, where we say a charge is bounded to mean its range its a bounded subset of R.)

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In mathematics, measure theory is a branch of real analysis that provides a rigorous framework for assigning a notion of "size," length, area, or volume to subsets of a given space, generalizing intuitive geometric measures to abstract sets. It formalizes the concept of a measure as a countably additive set function μ defined on a σ-algebra of subsets of a set X, where μ maps to the extended non-negative reals [0, ∞], with μ(∅) = 0 and additivity over disjoint countable unions. The theory originated in the early 20th century through the work of French mathematician Henri Lebesgue, who introduced the foundational ideas in his 1902 doctoral dissertation Intégrale, longueur, aire, building on prior contributions from Émile Borel and others to resolve limitations in Riemann integration. Central to measure theory are σ-algebras, collections of subsets closed under complementation and countable unions, which define the domain of measurable sets on which a measure operates consistently. Measurability extends to functions, where a function f: X → ℝ is measurable if the preimage of every is measurable, enabling the definition of integrals as limits of approximations. The , a specific complete measure on ℝⁿ that coincides with Euclidean length, area, and for intervals and rectangles, is constructed via (the infimum of coverings by intervals) and for measurability, ensuring countable additivity on the resulting σ-algebra. This construction, due to Lebesgue in 1902, allows handling of "pathological" sets like the , which are non-measurable under the . Measure theory underpins modern integration, with the Lebesgue integral extending the Riemann integral to a broader class of functions (e.g., bounded functions on sets of finite measure, or unbounded functions via limits), and dominating convergence theorems that facilitate interchanging limits and integrals. In , measures normalize to probability measures (with total mass 1), providing the axiomatic foundation for Kolmogorov's probability spaces and enabling rigorous treatment of random variables and expectations. Applications extend to (e.g., Lᵖ spaces), partial differential equations, and , while generalizations like address fractal dimensions and geometric properties. The theory's emphasis on null sets (measure zero) allows quotienting by negligible differences, unifying continuous and discrete .

Foundations

Definition

In measure theory, the foundational structure for defining a measure is a sigma-algebra on a set XX, which is a collection A\mathcal{A} of subsets of XX (called measurable sets) that includes the \emptyset and XX itself, and is closed under complements and countable unions (and hence also countable intersections). This ensures that the family of measurable sets is sufficiently rich to support operations needed for measuring sizes in a consistent manner. A measure μ\mu on a (X,A)(X, \mathcal{A}) is formally defined as a function μ:A[0,]\mu: \mathcal{A} \to [0, \infty] satisfying two key axioms: μ()=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0, and for any countable collection of pairwise disjoint sets {An}n=1A\{A_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \subset \mathcal{A}, μ(n=1An)=n=1μ(An).\mu\left( \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n \right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n). The non-negativity axiom requires that μ(A)0\mu(A) \geq 0 for all AAA \in \mathcal{A}, while the null empty set axiom specifies μ()=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0. The countable additivity axiom, also known as σ\sigma-additivity, extends finite additivity to countable disjoint unions, allowing measures to handle infinite processes appropriately. Measures are typically extended real-valued, meaning they can take the value \infty for certain sets, which accommodates unbounded spaces; in contrast, positive measures are sometimes restricted to finite values, though the extended version is standard in measure . A example is the on R\mathbb{R}, which assigns lengths to intervals.

Simple Instances

The counting measure on a set XX is defined on the power set σ\sigma-algebra 2X2^X by μ(A)=A\mu(A) = |A| if AXA \subseteq X is finite and μ(A)=\mu(A) = \infty otherwise. This construction satisfies the axioms of a measure, as the empty set has measure zero and countable disjoint unions add up correctly, with infinite sets receiving infinite measure. For instance, on the natural numbers N\mathbb{N}, it assigns measure 1 to singletons and \infty to infinite subsets. The Dirac measure δx\delta_x centered at a point xXx \in X is defined on any σ\sigma-algebra containing the singletons by δx(A)=1\delta_x(A) = 1 if xAx \in A and 00 otherwise. It is a simple example of a measure concentrated at a single point, verifying the measure axioms through the 1{x}1_{\{x\}}, and extends to probability measures when normalized, though here it totals 1 without further scaling. Lebesgue measure on Rn\mathbb{R}^n arises from the outer measure construction, where the outer measure λ(E)\lambda^*(E) of a set EE is the infimum of sums of volumes of countable rectangular coverings of EE. Measurable sets are then those satisfying : for any set TT, λ(T)=λ(TE)+λ(TE)\lambda^*(T) = \lambda^*(T \cap E) + \lambda^*(T \setminus E), restricting the outer measure to form a complete measure on the Lebesgue σ\sigma-algebra. In one dimension, it assigns λ([a,b])=ba\lambda([a,b]) = b - a for closed intervals, extending to Borel sets and beyond. Haar measure on a locally compact GG is a left-invariant measure (unique up to positive scalar multiple) existing by the , which associates it to positive linear functionals on continuous functions with compact support. For the additive group R\mathbb{R}, it coincides with , while on the Z\mathbb{Z}, it recovers the . This invariance ensures μ(gA)=μ(A)\mu(gA) = \mu(A) for gGg \in G and measurable AA.

Core Properties

Monotonicity and Additivity

Countable additivity implies finite additivity for a measure μ\mu on a σ\sigma-algebra. Specifically, if {Ai}i=1n\{A_i\}_{i=1}^n is a finite collection of pairwise disjoint measurable sets, then μ(i=1nAi)=i=1nμ(Ai)\mu\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i\right) = \sum_{i=1}^n \mu(A_i). This follows by extending the finite collection to a countable one with empty sets: set Ak=A_k = \emptyset for k>nk > n, so μ(i=1Ai)=i=1μ(Ai)=i=1nμ(Ai)+k=n+1μ()=i=1nμ(Ai)\mu\left(\bigcup_{i=1}^\infty A_i\right) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \mu(A_i) = \sum_{i=1}^n \mu(A_i) + \sum_{k=n+1}^\infty \mu(\emptyset) = \sum_{i=1}^n \mu(A_i), since μ()=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0. A direct consequence of finite additivity and non-negativity of measures is monotonicity: if ABA \subseteq B are measurable sets, then μ(A)μ(B)\mu(A) \leq \mu(B). To see this, note that B=A(BA)B = A \cup (B \setminus A) where AA and BAB \setminus A are disjoint, so μ(B)=μ(A)+μ(BA)μ(A)\mu(B) = \mu(A) + \mu(B \setminus A) \geq \mu(A) because μ(BA)0\mu(B \setminus A) \geq 0. For non-disjoint sets, finite additivity extends to general finite unions via disjoint . For two measurable sets AA and BB, decompose AB=A(BA)A \cup B = A \cup (B \setminus A), yielding μ(AB)=μ(A)+μ(BA)\mu(A \cup B) = \mu(A) + \mu(B \setminus A). Since BABB \setminus A \subseteq B, monotonicity implies μ(BA)μ(B)\mu(B \setminus A) \leq \mu(B), so μ(AB)μ(A)+μ(B)\mu(A \cup B) \leq \mu(A) + \mu(B); this is finite . Equivalently, using the identity AB=(AB)(BA)(AB)A \cup B = (A \setminus B) \cup (B \setminus A) \cup (A \cap B) with disjoint parts, μ(AB)=μ(AB)+μ(BA)+μ(AB)\mu(A \cup B) = \mu(A \setminus B) + \mu(B \setminus A) + \mu(A \cap B), which rearranges via monotonicity and additivity to the inclusion-exclusion formula μ(AB)=μ(A)+μ(B)μ(AB)\mu(A \cup B) = \mu(A) + \mu(B) - \mu(A \cap B). These relations hold for any finite number of sets by iterative . On the power set of an , finitely additive measures exist that are not countably additive, often constructed using the via ultrafilters; a simple example arises on the of finite and cofinite sets (the finite-cofinite ), where one defines μ(E)=0\mu(E) = 0 if EE is finite and μ(E)=1\mu(E) = 1 if EE is cofinite. This μ\mu is finitely additive: for disjoint E1,,EnE_1, \dots, E_n in the , their union is finite if all are finite (so μ(Ei)=0=μ(Ei)\mu(\bigcup E_i) = 0 = \sum \mu(E_i)) or cofinite if at least one is cofinite (since the complement of the union is the of complements, finite if any is cofinite, hence μ(Ei)=1=μ(Ei)\mu(\bigcup E_i) = 1 = \sum \mu(E_i) as exactly one term is 1 and others 0). However, it fails countable additivity on countable disjoint finite sets covering the space.

Continuity and Subadditivity

In measure theory, a key extension of finite additivity is countable , which states that for any countable collection of measurable sets {An}n=1\{A_n\}_{n=1}^\infty in a (X,M,μ)(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu), the measure of their union satisfies μ(n=1An)n=1μ(An)\mu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n\right) \leq \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n). This inequality follows from the monotonicity and countable additivity of μ\mu: first, construct a disjoint collection {Bn}n=1\{B_n\}_{n=1}^\infty such that n=1Bn=n=1An\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty B_n = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n by setting B1=A1B_1 = A_1 and Bn=Ank=1n1AkB_n = A_n \setminus \bigcup_{k=1}^{n-1} A_k for n2n \geq 2; monotonicity implies μ(Bn)μ(An)\mu(B_n) \leq \mu(A_n) for each nn, and countable additivity yields μ(n=1An)=μ(n=1Bn)=n=1μ(Bn)n=1μ(An)\mu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n\right) = \mu\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty B_n\right) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(B_n) \leq \sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu(A_n). Countable subadditivity enables the analysis of limits of sets, leading to continuity properties of measures. Specifically, continuity from below holds: if {An}n=1\{A_n\}_{n=1}^\infty is an increasing of measurable sets (i.e., AnAA_n \uparrow A where A=n=1AnA = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n), then limnμ(An)=μ(A)\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) = \mu(A). To see this, define D1=A1D_1 = A_1 and Dn=AnAn1D_n = A_n \setminus A_{n-1} for n2n \geq 2; then the DnD_n are disjoint, n=1Dn=A\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty D_n = A, and An=k=1nDkA_n = \bigcup_{k=1}^n D_k, so μ(An)=k=1nμ(Dk)\mu(A_n) = \sum_{k=1}^n \mu(D_k) and μ(A)=k=1μ(Dk)=limnμ(An)\mu(A) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu(D_k) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) by countable additivity. Dually, continuity from above applies to decreasing sequences: if {An}n=1\{A_n\}_{n=1}^\infty is decreasing with AnAA_n \downarrow A where A=n=1AnA = \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty A_n and μ(A1)<\mu(A_1) < \infty, then limnμ(An)=μ(A)\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) = \mu(A). The proof relies on complements: consider the increasing sequence A1AnA1AA_1 \setminus A_n \uparrow A_1 \setminus A, which has measure μ(A1)μ(An)\mu(A_1) - \mu(A_n); by continuity from below, limnμ(A1An)=μ(A1A)=μ(A1)μ(A)\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_1 \setminus A_n) = \mu(A_1 \setminus A) = \mu(A_1) - \mu(A), so subtracting from μ(A1)\mu(A_1) yields the result, with the finite measure condition propagating through the differences. These continuity properties thus connect the measures of limiting sets directly to the limits of their measures, underpinning approximations in integration and probability.

Advanced Properties

Completeness and Regularity

A measure space (X,M,μ)(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu) is called complete if every subset of a null set (a measurable set of measure zero) is itself measurable and hence also null. This property ensures that the sigma-algebra M\mathcal{M} includes all subsets of sets with measure zero, preventing "invisible" non-measurable subsets within null sets. Completeness simplifies many arguments in analysis by allowing subsets of null sets to be treated as measurable without altering the measure. The completion of a measure space addresses incompleteness by extending the sigma-algebra to include all subsets of null sets. Specifically, for a measure space (X,M,μ)(X, \mathcal{M}, \mu), the completion M\overline{\mathcal{M}} consists of all sets of the form ANA \cup N where AMA \in \mathcal{M} and NBN \subseteq B for some BMB \in \mathcal{M} with μ(B)=0\mu(B) = 0, or equivalently AΔNA \Delta N with AMA \in \mathcal{M} and NN null. The extended measure μ\overline{\mu} is defined by μ(AN)=μ(A)\overline{\mu}(A \cup N) = \mu(A), which preserves the original measure on M\mathcal{M} and assigns measure zero to all new sets. This construction yields a complete measure space (X,M,μ)(\overline{X}, \overline{\mathcal{M}}, \overline{\mu}) that is minimal in the sense that it is the smallest complete extension containing the original sigma-algebra. The Lebesgue measure on Rn\mathbb{R}^n becomes complete upon this completion process. Regularity properties provide ways to approximate measurable sets using simpler topological sets, refining the structure of measures on topological spaces. A measure μ\mu on a topological space is outer regular if for every measurable set AA, μ(A)=inf{μ(U):UA,U open},\mu(A) = \inf \{ \mu(U) : U \supseteq A, \, U \text{ open} \}, allowing approximation from above by open sets. Similarly, μ\mu is inner regular if μ(A)=sup{μ(K):KA,K compact},\mu(A) = \sup \{ \mu(K) : K \subseteq A, \, K \text{ compact} \}, enabling approximation from below by compact sets. These properties hold for the Lebesgue measure on Borel sets in Rn\mathbb{R}^n, where outer regularity applies to all subsets via the outer measure, and inner regularity holds for measurable sets. In the context of Borel measures on locally compact Hausdorff spaces, Radon measures exemplify strong regularity. A Radon measure is a Borel measure that is finite on compact sets, outer regular on all Borel sets, and inner regular on open sets. For such measures, the inner regularity extends to all Borel sets under sigma-finiteness, and theorems guarantee that Borel regular outer measures (outer regular and finite on compacts) coincide with Radon measures. This "dropping the edge" phenomenon allows precise approximation of Borel sets by open or closed sets, crucial for integration and duality in functional analysis. In probability theory, inner regularity manifests as tightness: a probability measure μ\mu on a metric space is tight if for every Borel set AA and ϵ>0\epsilon > 0, there exists a compact KAK \subseteq A with μ(AK)<ϵ\mu(A \setminus K) < \epsilon, equivalent to μ(A)=sup{μ(K):KA,K compact}\mu(A) = \sup \{ \mu(K) : K \subseteq A, \, K \text{ compact} \}. Thus, tightness is precisely the inner regularity condition for probability measures, ensuring no mass escapes to infinity and facilitating weak convergence results like Prokhorov's theorem.

Finite and Sigma-Finite Measures

A measure μ\mu on a measurable space (X,Σ)(X, \Sigma) is finite if μ(X)<\mu(X) < \infty. Finite measures exhibit robust properties, including continuity from above: for any decreasing sequence of measurable sets AnAA_n \downarrow A, it holds that limnμ(An)=μ(A)\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) = \mu(A). A measure μ\mu is σ\sigma-finite if X=n=1XnX = \bigcup_{n=1}^\infty X_n for some sequence of measurable sets {Xn}\{X_n\} with μ(Xn)<\mu(X_n) < \infty for each nn.[](https://e.math.cornell.edu/people/belk/measure theory/MoreMeasureTheory.pdf) This condition permits the total measure μ(X)\mu(X) to be infinite while allowing decomposition into countably many finite-measure components, facilitating the extension of finite-measure techniques to broader settings. For instance, Lebesgue measure λ\lambda on R\mathbb{R} (with the Borel σ\sigma-algebra) is σ\sigma-finite, as \mathbb{R} = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} [n, n+1)&#36; and \lambda([n, n+1)) = 1 < \inftyforeachfor eachn.[](https://e.math.cornell.edu/people/belk/measuretheory/MoreMeasureTheory.pdf)Incontrast,countingmeasureonanuncountablesetlike.[](https://e.math.cornell.edu/people/belk/measure theory/MoreMeasureTheory.pdf) In contrast, counting measure on an uncountable set like \mathbb{R}(where(where\mu(A) = |A|ififAisfiniteandis finite and\inftyotherwise)isnototherwise) is not\sigmafinite,sincesetsoffinitemeasurearepreciselythefinitesubsets,andanycountableunionoffinitesetsremainscountable,failingtocover-finite, since sets of finite measure are precisely the finite subsets, and any countable union of finite sets remains countable, failing to cover \mathbb{R}$.[](https://e.math.cornell.edu/people/belk/measure theory/MoreMeasureTheory.pdf) σ\sigma-Finiteness enhances continuity properties beyond those of general measures: for AnAA_n \downarrow A with each AnΣA_n \in \Sigma, limnμ(An)=μ(A)\lim_{n \to \infty} \mu(A_n) = \mu(A) holds without requiring μ(A1)<\mu(A_1) < \infty, as the finite decomposition allows restriction to finite-measure portions where standard continuity applies. This assumption is also essential for theorems like Fubini's, which equates the integral of a nonnegative measurable function over a product space to iterated integrals when both measures are σ\sigma-finite. Every σ\sigma-finite measure is semifinite.

Semifinite and Localizable Measures

A semifinite measure on a measurable space (X,A)(X, \mathcal{A}) is defined such that for every set EAE \in \mathcal{A} with μ(E)>0\mu(E) > 0, there exists a FEF \subseteq E in A\mathcal{A} satisfying 0<μ(F)<0 < \mu(F) < \infty. This condition ensures that sets of infinite measure can be "approximated" by of finite positive measure. An equivalent characterization is that the measure has no infinite atoms, meaning there is no set EE with μ(E)=\mu(E) = \infty such that every measurable of EE has measure either 0 or \infty. All σ\sigma-finite measures are semifinite, as they can be exhausted by countable unions of finite-measure sets, allowing extraction of finite subsets from positive-measure sets. A basic example of a semifinite but not σ\sigma-finite measure is the counting measure on an uncountable set XX, where μ(A)=A\mu(A) = |A| if AA is finite and \infty otherwise; singletons have measure 1, so any non-empty set contains a finite positive-measure subset. Another example is Dieudonné's measure on the first uncountable ordinal ω1\omega_1 equipped with its order topology, a semifinite Borel measure on this non-locally compact space where measures of initial segments grow without bound but finite subsets exist for positive sets. An involved example arises in uncountable products: consider the product space iIN\prod_{i \in I} \mathbb{N} for uncountable II, endowed with the product σ\sigma-algebra and the product of counting measures on each factor; this yields a semifinite measure, as finite-support sections provide finite-measure subsets within positive sets, though the total space has infinite measure without σ\sigma-finiteness. Non-examples of semifinite measures include the pathological measure μ(A)=0\mu(A) = 0 if A=A = \emptyset and μ(A)=\mu(A) = \infty otherwise on the power set of any non-empty set; here, every non-empty set has infinite measure, but no subset has finite positive measure, violating the condition. Semifinite measures support integral decompositions where the integral of a non-negative measurable function ff is the supremum of integrals over finite-measure subsets, enabling extension of integration theory beyond σ\sigma-finiteness while avoiding pathologies in infinite cases. Localizable measures provide a stricter framework: a semifinite measure is localizable if the measurable space admits a directed family of finite submeasures whose pointwise supremum recovers the original measure, ensuring Dedekind completeness in the measure algebra for robust handling of suprema over disjoint families. Localizability implies semifiniteness but is not equivalent, as some semifinite measures like certain pathological products fail the directed exhaustion property; σ\sigma-finite measures are special cases of localizable ones.

Pathological and Limiting Cases

Non-Measurable Sets

In measure theory, particularly for the on the real numbers, non-measurable sets are subsets that cannot be assigned a measure value while preserving the axioms of additivity, monotonicity, and translation invariance. These sets highlight fundamental limitations in extending measure from simple intervals to all subsets of the space, as the collection of measurable sets forms a proper sigma-algebra that excludes certain pathological subsets. The existence of such sets underscores the incompleteness of the Lebesgue sigma-algebra and the role of set-theoretic assumptions in determining what can be measured. A canonical example is the Vitali set, constructed within the unit interval [0,1] using the . Consider the equivalence relation on [0,1] where two points x,y[0,1]x, y \in [0,1] are equivalent if xyQx - y \in \mathbb{Q}. This partitions [0,1] into uncountably many equivalence classes, each dense in [0,1]. Selecting exactly one representative from each class via the yields a set V[0,1]V \subset [0,1], known as a . The rational translates V+q={v+qvV}V + q = \{v + q \mid v \in V\} for qQ[0,1)q \in \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,1) are pairwise disjoint, and their union covers [0,1]. If VV were with measure μ(V)=m>0\mu(V) = m > 0, then the measure of the union would be countably infinite, exceeding the measure of [0,1], which is 1; if m=0m = 0, the union would have measure 0, again contradicting the coverage of [0,1]. Thus, VV is non-measurable. This construction was first given by Giuseppe Vitali in 1905. In higher dimensions, non-measurable sets appear in the Banach-Tarski paradox, which decomposes the unit ball in R3\mathbb{R}^3 into finitely many non-measurable pieces that can be rigidly reassembled into two copies of the original ball. The proof relies on the to select representatives from cosets of a free subgroup of rank 2 in the special SO(3), enabling paradoxical rotations that double the volume without stretching. Specifically, the ball is partitioned into pieces equivariant under these group actions, each piece non-measurable with respect to in R3\mathbb{R}^3. This result, established by and in 1924, extends the idea of non-measurability to geometric decompositions and illustrates how choice enables counterintuitive equidissections in Euclidean spaces of dimension at least 3. The existence of non-measurable sets is tied to the (AC); without it, such sets may not be provable. In Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) augmented by the axiom of dependent choice (DC), it is consistent that all subsets of the reals are Lebesgue measurable. Robert Solovay constructed such a model in 1970, assuming the existence of a strongly , where every set of reals has the property of Baire, is Lebesgue measurable, and has the perfect set property. However, in full Zermelo-Fraenkel with choice (ZFC), non-measurable sets necessarily exist, as shown by constructions like the . Non-measurable sets can still be assigned a Lebesgue outer measure, defined as the infimum of the total length of countable open interval covers. For the V[0,1]V \subset [0,1], the outer measure is 1, matching that of [0,1], since any cover must encompass the entire interval due to the density of its translates. However, the inner measure, approximated from below by compact subsets, is 0, as no positive measure compact set can intersect all equivalence classes without overlapping rationals improperly. This discrepancy—positive outer measure but no exact measure—prevents inclusion in the Lebesgue sigma-algebra. The historical discovery of non-measurable sets traces to Vitali's 1905 work, which resolved the of whether Lebesgue measure extends to all subsets by showing it does not under standard axioms.

Infinite and s-Finite Measures

Infinite measures arise in measure theory when the total measure of the underlying space is infinite, yet the measure still adheres to the fundamental axioms: non-negativity, μ(∅) = 0, and countable subadditivity for . These measures are essential for modeling unbounded spaces, such as the real line under , where μ(ℝ) = ∞. A simple example is the on the natural numbers ℕ equipped with the power set , defined by μ(A) = |A| if A is finite and μ(A) = ∞ otherwise; this satisfies countable additivity since infinite disjoint unions yield infinity. s-Finite measures provide a framework for handling certain infinite measures by decomposing them into countable sums of finite measures. Specifically, a measure μ on (X, Σ) is s-finite if there exist finite measures μ_n (n ∈ ℕ) such that μ = ∑{n=1}^∞ μ_n, where the sum is defined on sets: μ(E) = ∑{n=1}^∞ μ_n(E) for E ∈ Σ. Every is s-finite, as it can be expressed via restrictions to the finite-measure sets in its , but the converse fails; for instance, the measure on a singleton space {x} with μ({x}) = ∞ and μ(∅) = 0 is s-finite (e.g., as ∑ n δ_x where δ_x is the of mass 1), yet not σ-finite since no proper nonempty subset has finite positive measure. Properties of s-finite measures include partial extensions of integration results, such as limited Fubini-type theorems for products where one factor is finite, though full constructions and unrestricted iterated integrals generally require σ-finiteness to ensure the is properly defined and additivity holds without anomalies. Unlike semifinite measures, which ensure every positive-measure set contains a finite-measure , s-finite measures need not satisfy this; the singleton example above illustrates that s-finiteness permits "purely infinite" components without finite approximations. In infinite groups, left-invariant Haar measures can be infinite and s-finite, as seen in certain noncompact groups where the measure decomposes into countable finite parts, facilitating applications despite the overall infinity. A key limitation of infinite and s-finite measures is the potential absence of continuity from above: if {E_n} is a decreasing of measurable sets with ∩ E_n = ∅, then μ(E_n) may not converge to 0 without additional conditions like σ-finiteness or finite measure on the E_n. For s-finite measures, this continuity can hold on the supports of the finite components but fails globally in pathological cases, underscoring the need for stricter assumptions in theorems involving limits.

Generalizations

Signed and Complex Measures

A signed measure on a measurable space (X,M)(X, \mathcal{M}) is a function ν:M[,]\nu: \mathcal{M} \to [-\infty, \infty] that is countably additive and satisfies ν()=0\nu(\emptyset) = 0, with the additional property that ν\nu takes at most one infinite value (either ++\infty or -\infty, but not both). Unlike positive measures, signed measures can take negative values, but for the finite case, the total variation ν(X)<|\nu|(X) < \infty. This extension builds on positive measures by allowing the codomain to be the extended reals while preserving countable additivity. The Jordan decomposition theorem provides a canonical way to express any signed measure ν\nu as the difference of two positive measures: ν=ν+ν\nu = \nu^+ - \nu^-, where ν+\nu^+ and ν\nu^- are mutually singular, meaning there exists a set EME \in \mathcal{M} such that ν+(XE)=0\nu^+(X \setminus E) = 0 and ν(E)=0\nu^-(E) = 0. The positive part is defined as ν+(A)=sup{ν(F):FA,FM}\nu^+(A) = \sup\{\nu(F) : F \subseteq A, F \in \mathcal{M}\} and the negative part as ν(A)=inf{ν(F):FA,FM}\nu^-(A) = -\inf\{\nu(F) : F \subseteq A, F \in \mathcal{M}\}, ensuring uniqueness of the decomposition. The total variation of ν\nu is the positive measure ν(A)=ν+(A)+ν(A)|\nu|(A) = \nu^+(A) + \nu^-(A), which satisfies ν(A)=sup{i=1nν(Ai):{Ai}i=1n is a partition of A}|\nu|(A) = \sup\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n |\nu(A_i)| : \{A_i\}_{i=1}^n \text{ is a partition of } A\right\}. A basic example of a signed measure is the difference of two positive measures, such as ν(A)=μ1(A)μ2(A)\nu(A) = \mu_1(A) - \mu_2(A) where μ1\mu_1 and μ2\mu_2 are positive and mutually singular on disjoint supports. More generally, the establishes that every continuous linear functional on the space of continuous functions with compact support Cc(X)C_c(X) on a locally compact XX corresponds to integration against a regular signed (or complex) . Complex measures generalize signed measures further by taking values in C\mathbb{C}, defined as μ:MC\mu: \mathcal{M} \to \mathbb{C} with countable additivity and μ()=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0, where the total variation μ|\mu| is a positive finite measure given by μ(A)=sup{i=1nμ(Ai):{Ai}i=1n partitions A}|\mu|(A) = \sup\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n |\mu(A_i)| : \{A_i\}_{i=1}^n \text{ partitions } A\right\}. Any complex measure decomposes as μ=μr+iμi\mu = \mu_r + i \mu_i with real and imaginary parts as signed measures, and its total variation satisfies μ(X)<|\mu|(X) < \infty. For signed measures, absolute continuity and singularity extend naturally: a signed measure ν\nu is absolutely continuous with respect to a positive measure μ\mu if ν(A)=0|\nu|(A) = 0 whenever μ(A)=0\mu(A) = 0, and two signed measures ν1,ν2\nu_1, \nu_2 are singular if there exists EME \in \mathcal{M} such that ν1(XE)=0|\nu_1|(X \setminus E) = 0 and ν2(E)=0|\nu_2|(E) = 0. These properties underpin the -Nikodym theorem for signed measures, where absolute continuity implies ν\nu is representable as integration against an L1(μ)L^1(\mu)-function.

Vector and Finitely Additive Measures

Finitely additive measures extend the classical concept of measures by requiring additivity only over finite disjoint unions of sets, rather than countable ones. Formally, given an A\mathcal{A} of subsets of a set XX, a finitely additive measure μ:A[0,]\mu: \mathcal{A} \to [0, \infty] satisfies μ()=0\mu(\emptyset) = 0 and μ(AB)=μ(A)+μ(B)\mu(A \cup B) = \mu(A) + \mu(B) whenever A,BAA, B \in \mathcal{A} are disjoint, with A\mathcal{A} closed under finite unions and complements but not necessarily countable operations. Unlike σ\sigma-additive measures, finitely additive ones are defined on algebras rather than σ\sigma-algebras, allowing broader applicability but potentially leading to pathologies such as non-measurable sets under the axiom of choice. A prominent example of a finitely additive measure is the Banach limit on the space \ell^\infty of bounded real sequences, which extends the standard limit functional via the Hahn-Banach theorem and induces a translation-invariant on the power set of N\mathbb{N} by setting μ(A)=L(χA)\mu(A) = L(\chi_A), where χA\chi_A is the characteristic of AA and LL is the Banach limit satisfying lim infxnL(x)lim supxn\liminf x_n \leq L(x) \leq \limsup x_n for any xx \in \ell^\infty. Another construction uses non-principal ultrafilters on N\mathbb{N}: for a free ultrafilter U\mathcal{U}, define μ(A)=1\mu(A) = 1 if AUA \in \mathcal{U} and $0otherwise,yieldingafinitelyadditiveotherwise, yielding a finitely additive{0,1}valued[probabilitymeasure](/page/Probabilitymeasure)on-valued [probability measure](/page/Probability_measure) on \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})thatextendstheasymptoticdensitywherepossiblebutvanishesonfinitesets.[](https://www3.nd.edu/ dgalvin1/pdf/ultrafilters.pdf)Suchmeasurescanbeextendedfromsubalgebras,likethefinitecofinitealgebra,tothefullpowersetusingtheHahnBanachtheorem,providingfinitelyadditiveextensionsthatarenotthat extends the asymptotic density where possible but vanishes on finite sets.[](https://www3.nd.edu/~dgalvin1/pdf/ultrafilters.pdf) Such measures can be extended from subalgebras, like the finite-cofinite algebra, to the full power set using the Hahn-Banach theorem, providing finitely additive extensions that are not\sigma$-additive. Vector measures generalize scalar measures by taking values in a Banach space EE, maintaining countable additivity on a σ\sigma-algebra Σ\Sigma over XX: a map ν:ΣE\nu: \Sigma \to E is a vector measure if ν()=0\nu(\emptyset) = 0 and ν(n=1An)=n=1ν(An)\nu(\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty A_n) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \nu(A_n) for disjoint AnΣA_n \in \Sigma, with the series converging in the norm topology of EE. Integration theory for vector measures relies on concepts like Bochner and Pettis integrability: a function f:XEf: X \to E is Bochner integrable with respect to a scalar measure μ\mu if it is strongly measurable (almost separably valued with preimages of open sets measurable) and fdμ<\int \|f\| \, d\mu < \infty, defining the indefinite integral ν(A)=Afdμ\nu(A) = \int_A f \, d\mu as a vector measure of bounded variation; Pettis integrability weakens this to weak measurability (scalar integrals Af,xdμ\int_A \langle f, x^* \rangle \, d\mu exist for all xEx^* \in E^*) and σ\sigma-additivity of the range in the weak topology, allowing integration in spaces where strong measurability fails, such as LL^\infty functions. Key properties of vector measures include the lack of a full Fubini-Tonelli without scalar restrictions: product measures may not decompose integrals over products straightforwardly, as the range may not permit unconditional convergence or slicing without additional separability assumptions on EE. For instance, in , the measure on subsets of R2\mathbb{R}^2 assigns to a EE the vector ν(E)=(Eydx,Exdy)\nu(E) = \left( \int_E y \, dx, -\int_E x \, dy \right), representing signed area contributions in R2\mathbb{R}^2, which arises as the indefinite of a and captures oriented content for applications like moment calculations. Finitely additive vector measures further relax countable additivity, often constructed via Hahn-Banach extensions or ultrafilter limits on algebras, relating back to scalar cases like signed measures where E=RE = \mathbb{R}, but enabling applications in non-separable spaces.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.