Inner measure: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Added link to sigma-algebra page) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An inner measure is a function defined on all subsets of a given set, taking values in the extended real number system. It can be thought of as a counterpart to an [[outer measure]]. Whereas outer measures define the "size" of a set via a minimal covering set (from the outside), inner measures define the size of a set by approximating it with a maximal subset (from the inside). Although it is possible to develop measure theory with outer measures alone -- and many modern textbooks do just this -- Henri Lebesgue, in his 1902 thesis "Intégrale, longueur, aire" ("Integral, Length, Area"), used both inner measures and outer measures to construct the foundations of measure theory. It was not until Constantin Carathéodory made further contributions to the development of measure theory that inner measures were found to be redundant and an alternative notion of a "measurable" set was found. | An inner measure is a function defined on all subsets of a given set, taking values in the extended real number system. It can be thought of as a counterpart to an [[outer measure]]. Whereas outer measures define the "size" of a set via a minimal covering set (from the outside), inner measures define the size of a set by approximating it with a maximal subset (from the inside). Although it is possible to develop measure theory with outer measures alone -- and many modern textbooks do just this<ref name="Folland">Gerald B. Folland, ''Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, second edition'', §1.4 </ref><ref name="Bass">Richard F. Bass, ''Real Analysis for Graduate Students: Version 4.2'', §4.1 </ref> -- Henri Lebesgue, in his 1902 thesis "Intégrale, longueur, aire" ("Integral, Length, Area"), used both inner measures and outer measures to construct the foundations of measure theory. It was not until Constantin Carathéodory made further contributions to the development of measure theory that inner measures were found to be redundant and an alternative notion of a "measurable" set was found<ref name="Bruckner">Bruckner, Bruckner, and Thomson, ''Real Analysis, second edition'', §2.1 </ref>. | ||
== Definition == | == Definition == | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
=== Outer Measures === | === Outer Measures === | ||
The Lebesgue outer measure <math>\mu^*</math> is usually defined in terms of open intervals as | The Lebesgue outer measure <math>\mu^*</math> is usually defined<ref name="Folland">Gerald B. Folland, ''Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, second edition'', §1.4 </ref> in terms of open intervals as | ||
:<math> \mu^*(A) = \inf \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^\infty |b_i - a_i| : A \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty (a_i, b_i) \right\}. </math> | :<math> \mu^*(A) = \inf \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^\infty |b_i - a_i| : A \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty (a_i, b_i) \right\}. </math> | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:<math> \mu_*(A) = \sup \{ \mu(F) : F \subseteq A, F \text{ compact} \}. </math> | :<math> \mu_*(A) = \sup \{ \mu(F) : F \subseteq A, F \text{ compact} \}. </math> | ||
Since <math>E</math> may not contain any intervals (e.g. in the case of the singleton <math>\{ x \}</math>), there is no corresponding way to write this definition using open intervals. However, it is possible to define the Lebesgue inner measure in terms of the Lebesgue outer measure, as follows. | Since <math>E</math> may not contain any intervals (e.g. in the case of the singleton <math>\{ x \}</math>), there is no corresponding way to write this definition using open intervals<ref name="Bruckner">Bruckner, Bruckner, and Thomson, ''Real Analysis, second edition'', §2.1 </ref>. However, it is possible to define the Lebesgue inner measure in terms of the Lebesgue outer measure, as follows. | ||
:<math>\mu_*(A) = b - a - \mu^*([a,b] \setminus A).</math> | :<math>\mu_*(A) = b - a - \mu^*([a,b] \setminus A).</math> | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
=== Measurable Sets === | === Measurable Sets === | ||
Both inner measures and outer measures have one glaring flaw, namely that <math>\mu^*(A_1 \cup A_2)</math> need not be equal to <math>\mu^*(A_1) + \mu^*(A_2)</math> (and equivalently for <math>\mu_*</math>). However, if one restricts to sets where <math>\mu^*(A) = \mu_*(A)</math>, then countable additivity does hold. Hence, <math>A \subseteq \mathbb{R}</math> is said to be a Lebesgue-measurable set if <math>\mu^*(A) = \mu_*(A)</math>. The collection of Lebesgue-measurable sets forms a <math>\sigma</math>-algebra, denoted | Both inner measures and outer measures have one glaring flaw, namely that <math>\mu^*(A_1 \cup A_2)</math> need not be equal to <math>\mu^*(A_1) + \mu^*(A_2)</math> (and equivalently for <math>\mu_*</math>). However, if one restricts to sets where <math>\mu^*(A) = \mu_*(A)</math>, then countable additivity does hold. Hence, <math>A \subseteq \mathbb{R}</math> is said to be a Lebesgue-measurable set if <math>\mu^*(A) = \mu_*(A)</math>. The collection of Lebesgue-measurable sets forms a [[Sigma-algebra | <math>\sigma</math>-algebra]], denoted | ||
:<math>\mathcal{A} = \{ A \subseteq \mathbb{R} : \mu^*(A) = \mu_*(A) \}.</math> | :<math>\mathcal{A} = \{ A \subseteq \mathbb{R} : \mu^*(A) = \mu_*(A) \}.</math> | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
The Lebesgue measure <math>\lambda: \mathcal{A} \rightarrow [0, \infty]</math> can then be defined by <math>\lambda(A) = \mu^*(A)</math> for all <math>A \in \mathcal{A}</math>. | The Lebesgue measure <math>\lambda: \mathcal{A} \rightarrow [0, \infty]</math> can then be defined by <math>\lambda(A) = \mu^*(A)</math> for all <math>A \in \mathcal{A}</math>. | ||
These definitions differ from those in common use today, but they agree with Henri Lebesgue's usage in his 1902 thesis. Later, Carathéodory removed the need for inner measures and defined a <math>\mu^*</math>-measurable set to be any set <math>A \subseteq \mathbb{R}</math> that satisfies | These definitions differ from those in common use today<ref name="Folland">Gerald B. Folland, ''Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, second edition'', §1.4 </ref><ref name="Bass">Richard F. Bass, ''Real Analysis for Graduate Students: Version 4.2'', §4.1 </ref>, but they agree with Henri Lebesgue's usage in his 1902 thesis. Later, Carathéodory removed the need for inner measures and defined a <math>\mu^*</math>-measurable set to be any set <math>A \subseteq \mathbb{R}</math> that satisfies | ||
:<math>\mu^*(E) = \mu^*(E \cap A) + \mu^*(E \setminus A)</math> | :<math>\mu^*(E) = \mu^*(E \cap A) + \mu^*(E \setminus A)</math> | ||
for all <math>E \subseteq \mathbb{R}</math>. | for all <math>E \subseteq \mathbb{R}</math>. | ||
== References == |
Latest revision as of 23:04, 13 November 2020
An inner measure is a function defined on all subsets of a given set, taking values in the extended real number system. It can be thought of as a counterpart to an outer measure. Whereas outer measures define the "size" of a set via a minimal covering set (from the outside), inner measures define the size of a set by approximating it with a maximal subset (from the inside). Although it is possible to develop measure theory with outer measures alone -- and many modern textbooks do just this[1][2] -- Henri Lebesgue, in his 1902 thesis "Intégrale, longueur, aire" ("Integral, Length, Area"), used both inner measures and outer measures to construct the foundations of measure theory. It was not until Constantin Carathéodory made further contributions to the development of measure theory that inner measures were found to be redundant and an alternative notion of a "measurable" set was found[3].
Definition
Let be an open set, and define a function as follows. If , then , and if is unbounded, then . Otherwise, if is open, then it can be written as a disjoint union of open intervals. Define for any open interval , and
whenever is a disjoint union of open intervals, .
It remains to show how is defined on closed, bounded subsets of (equivalently, compact subsets of , by the Heine-Borel theorem). Let be compact, and suppose is the smallest closed interval containing . Define
In other words, is the measure of the smallest interval containing , minus the measure of the complement of (which is an open set, and hence defined).
It is worth noting that this implies a particularly nice result, namely
Outer Measures
The Lebesgue outer measure is usually defined[1] in terms of open intervals as
Using the function defined above, this can be rewritten in terms of general open sets as
Inner Measures
The Lebesgue inner measure of an arbitrary subset is defined as
Since may not contain any intervals (e.g. in the case of the singleton ), there is no corresponding way to write this definition using open intervals[3]. However, it is possible to define the Lebesgue inner measure in terms of the Lebesgue outer measure, as follows.
Measurable Sets
Both inner measures and outer measures have one glaring flaw, namely that need not be equal to (and equivalently for ). However, if one restricts to sets where , then countable additivity does hold. Hence, is said to be a Lebesgue-measurable set if . The collection of Lebesgue-measurable sets forms a -algebra, denoted
The Lebesgue measure can then be defined by for all .
These definitions differ from those in common use today[1][2], but they agree with Henri Lebesgue's usage in his 1902 thesis. Later, Carathéodory removed the need for inner measures and defined a -measurable set to be any set that satisfies
for all .