Absolute continuity of a Borel measure












4














This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.



Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.



(a) Prove that $mu ll m$.



(b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.



My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)



Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.



(b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.



Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?










share|cite|improve this question





























    4














    This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.



    Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.



    (a) Prove that $mu ll m$.



    (b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.



    My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)



    Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.



    (b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.



    Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4







      This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.



      Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.



      (a) Prove that $mu ll m$.



      (b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.



      My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)



      Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.



      (b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.



      Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?










      share|cite|improve this question















      This is a question from Ph. D Qualifying Exam of real analysis.



      Let $F$ be an increasing function on $[0,1]$ with $F(0)=0$ and $F(1)=1$. Let $mu$ be a Borel measure defined by $mu((a, b))=F(b-)-F(a+)$ and $mu({0})=mu({1})=0$. Suppose that the function $F$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition $$|F(x)-F(y)|le A|x-y|$$ for some $A>0$. Let $m$ be the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.



      (a) Prove that $mu ll m$.



      (b) Prove that $dfrac{dmu}{dm} le A $ a.e.



      My attempt: (a) Since $F$ is Lipschitz continuous, it is clear that $F$ is absolutely continuous and $F$ is differentiable a.e. and $$mu((a, b))=int_{a}^{b}F'dm$$ by absolute continuity. Since $mu$ is a Borel measure, it extends to $mu(E)=int_E F'dm$ for every Borel set $E$.(I'm not sure for this part. Is there any related theorem or counterexample for this one?)



      Therefore, it suffices to show that $int_E F' =0$ whenever $E$ is a Borel set and $m(E)=0$, and this is obvious from the definition of Lebesgue integral.



      (b) From (a), $dfrac{dmu}{dm}=F'$ and by Lipschitz continuity, $|F'|le A$ a.e. and the result is obvious.



      Am I correct? Is there any errors or logical jumps in my attempt?







      real-analysis measure-theory proof-verification lebesgue-measure absolute-continuity






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 27 '18 at 16:01









      Davide Giraudo

      125k16150259




      125k16150259










      asked Feb 19 '18 at 8:17









      bellcircle

      1,334411




      1,334411






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.



          Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
          $$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$



          The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
          $$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
          Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.



          In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
          $$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
          so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            0














            I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
            begin{equation}
            frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
            end{equation}

            For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
            begin{equation}
            frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
            end{equation}



            I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2656640%2fabsolute-continuity-of-a-borel-measure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              0














              You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.



              Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
              $$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$



              The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
              $$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
              Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.



              In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
              $$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
              so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                0














                You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.



                Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
                $$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$



                The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
                $$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
                Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.



                In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
                $$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
                so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  0












                  0








                  0






                  You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.



                  Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
                  $$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$



                  The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
                  $$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
                  Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.



                  In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
                  $$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
                  so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  You don't need the full extension to Borel sets - open sets will suffice. Recall that any open set $G subset mathbb R$ may be written as a union of disjoint open intervals ${(a_k,b_k)}$.



                  Suppose that $N subset (0,1)$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero. For any $epsilon > 0$ there exists an open set $G subset (0,1)$ with the property that $N subset G$ and $m(G) < epsilon$. Writing $G = cup (a_k,b_k)$ as above you find
                  $$mu(G) = sum_k mu(a_k,b_k) = sum_k int_{(a_k,b_k)} F' , dm = int_G F' , dm.$$



                  The monotonicity of $mu$ and the fact that $|F'| le A$ almost everywhere give you
                  $$mu(N) le mu(G) = int_G F' , dm le A mu(G) < A epsilon.$$
                  Since $epsilon > 0$ is arbitrary you get $mu(N) = 0$.



                  In general, if $N subset [0,1]$ is a Borel set with Lebesgue measure zero then
                  $$mu(N) le mu({0}) + mu(N cap (0,1)) + mu({1}) = 0$$
                  so that $mu(N) = 0$ too. Thus $mu ll m$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 27 '18 at 16:15









                  Umberto P.

                  38.5k13064




                  38.5k13064























                      0














                      I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
                      begin{equation}
                      frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
                      end{equation}

                      For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
                      begin{equation}
                      frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
                      end{equation}



                      I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.






                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                        0














                        I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
                        begin{equation}
                        frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
                        end{equation}

                        For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
                        begin{equation}
                        frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
                        end{equation}



                        I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          0












                          0








                          0






                          I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
                          begin{equation}
                          frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
                          end{equation}

                          For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
                          begin{equation}
                          frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
                          end{equation}



                          I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          I would suggest a simpler approach: First note that even though $F$ was only assumed Borel-measurable, we also assume $F$ is Lipschitz and thus continuous. Since $F$ is also increasing, we see that in fact $mu((a,b))=F(b)-F(a)=|F(b)-F(a)| leq A |b-a| = A : m((a,b))$. It follows immediately that $mu leq A m$ (in the sense of on every measurable set). Absolute continuity is clear now, and using the Radon-Nikodym theorem on $mathbb{R}$, i.e.
                          begin{equation}
                          frac{d mu}{d m}(x)=lim_{epsilon rightarrow 0} frac{mu((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}{m((x-epsilon,x+epsilon))}
                          end{equation}

                          For almost all $x in mathbb{R}$, we can immediatly conclude
                          begin{equation}
                          frac{d mu}{d m}(x) leq A
                          end{equation}



                          I would‘t see what‘s wrong with your approach though, maybe this is a just a bit more immediate and uses less machinery.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Nov 27 '18 at 16:20









                          Max

                          1187




                          1187






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2656640%2fabsolute-continuity-of-a-borel-measure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Ellipse (mathématiques)

                              Quarter-circle Tiles

                              Mont Emei