没有合适的资源?快使用搜索试试~ 我知道了~
资源推荐
资源详情
资源评论
Chapter 1 Abstract Integration
1, Does there exist an infinite σ−algebra which has only countably many members?
Solution: No. There exists no such a infinite σ−algebra M which has only countably members.
Proof: Suppose M is a σ−algebra of subsets in a set X which has only infinite countably many
members. So we can pick from M a countably many members A
1
, A
2
, ···. Without loss of generality,
{A
i
}
∞
i=1
are mutually pairwise disjoint, for otherwise letting
¯
A
1
= A
1
,
¯
A
2
= A
2
− A
1
, · · ·,
¯
A
k
= A
k
−
k−1
[
i=1
A
i
, · · ·
then clearly
¯
A
i
∈ M and
¯
A
i
T
¯
A
j
= ∅ if i 6= j.
Let 2
N
be the collection of all subsets of the natural numbers N, then it is well known that
the cardinal number of 2
N
is 2
N
= [0, 1] = C. (See p25, exercise 3 in the book of Jiang zejian).
For any given Y ∈ 2
N
, since Y is a countable set and M is a σ−algebra,
S
n∈Y
A
n
∈ M. Let
f : 2
N
→ M is given by f(Y ) =
S
n∈Y
A
n
. Then f is well defined and it is one to one, i.e. if
Y, Z ∈ 2
N
, Y 6= Z, then f(Y ) 6= f (Z).
In fact, Y 6= Z implies that there exists an n
0
∈ Y
T
Z
c
⊂ N. Since A
i
T
A
j
= ∅ if i 6= j
and n
0
∈ Z
c
, by the definition of f, A
n
0
T
f(Z) = A
n
0
T
(
S
n∈Z
A
n
) = ∅. So, A
n
0
∈ f(Z)
c
while A
n
0
∈ f(Y ), i.e. f(Y ) 6= f(Z). Therefore f : 2
N
→ M is one-to-one, which implies that
C = 2
N
≤ M ≤ N = C
0
is a contradiction. So, the contradiction shows that M can not has only
countable many members.
We give the proof that 2
N
= [0, 1] = C here. For any given A ⊂ N, set ϕ
A
(n) = {
1, if n ∈ A;
0, if n 6∈ A.
Let g : A → (0, 1) is given by g(A) = 0. ϕ
A
(1)ϕ
A
(2) · ··, it is obvious that g is one-to-one. So,
2
N
≤ [0, 1].
On the other hand, for any x ∈ (0, 1), set A
x
= {r; r ≤ x, r ∈ R}, where R is the set of all
the rational in (0, 1). If x, y ∈ (0, 1) and x 6= y, by Berstein’s theorem, the density of rational in
R, A
x
6= A
y
. So, (0, 1) ≤ R = 2
N
.
So, 2
N
= [0, 1] = C. 2
2, Prove an analogue of Theorem 1.8 for n functions.
Solution: We have the following result.
Theorem 1.8
0
: Let u
1
, u
2
, ..., u
n
be real measurable functions on a measurable space X, let Φ be
a continuous mapping of R
N
onto a topological space Y , and define
h(x) = Φ(u
1
(x), ..., u
n
(x))
for x ∈ X. Then h : X → Y is measurable.
Proof: Since h = Φ ◦ f, where f(x) = (u
1
(x), ..., u
n
(x)) and f maps X into R
n
. Theorem 1.7
shows that it is enough to prove the measurability of f.
1
If R is any open rectangle in R
n
with sides parallel to the coordinate super plane, then
R = I
1
× I
2
× · · · × I
n
, where I
i
= (a
i
, b
i
) ⊂ R
1
(i = 1, 2, ..., n) are open segments and
f
−1
(R) = u
−1
1
(I
1
)
\
u
−1
2
(I
2
)
\
· · ·
\
u
−1
n
(I
n
).
In fact, for any given x ∈ f
−1
(R), we have f(x) = (u
1
(x), ..., u
n
(x)) ∈ R = I
1
×I
2
×···×I
n
and
u
i
(x) ∈ I
i
, then x ∈ u
−1
i
(I
i
) for i = 1, 2, ..., n, that is x ∈
T
n
i=1
u
−1
i
(I
i
). On the other hand, for any
x ∈
T
n
i=1
u
−1
i
(I
i
), we have x
i
∈ u
−1
i
(i), u
i
(x) ∈ I
i
and f (x) = (u
1
(x), ..., u
n
(x)) ∈ I
1
×I
2
×···×I
n
.
So f
−1
(R) is measurable for each open rectangle interval R ⊂ R
n
as u
i
are measurable on X.
By Lindelif’s Theorem, every open set V is a countable union of open interval with sides
parallel to the coordinate super-plane, V =
S
R
i
, So f
−1
(V ) =
S
n
i=1
f
−1
(R
i
) is measurable as well.
2
3, Prove that if f is a real function on a measurable space X such that {x; f(x) > r} is measurable
for every rational r, then f if measurable.
Proof: For any α ∈ R
1
, there is a sequence of rational {r
n
; n = 1, 2, ...} such that r
1
> r
2
> r
3
>
... > r
n
> ... > α with lim
n→∞
r
n
= α. So
{x; f(x) > α} =
+∞
[
n=1
{x; f(x) ≥ r
n
}.
In fact, for any x ∈ {x; f (x) > α}, there is a n
0
such that α < r
n
0
≤ f(x), therefore
x ∈ {x; f(x) > α}. On the other hand, r
n
> α implies that
+∞
[
n=1
{x; f(x) ≥ r
n
} ⊂ {x; f(x) > α}.
By the condition, for any given n, {x; f(x) ≥ r
n
} is measurable, we see that {x; f(x) > α} is
measurable for any α ∈ R
1
. By Theorem 1.12, f is measurable. 2
4, Let {a
n
} and {b
n
} be sequence in [−∞, +∞], prove the following assertions:
(a) lim sup
n→∞
(−a
n
) = −lim inf
n→∞
a
n
;
(b) lim sup
n→∞
(a
n
+ b
n
) ≤ lim sup
n→∞
a
n
+ lim sup
n→∞
b
n
provided none of the sums is of the form ∞ − ∞;
(c) If a
n
≤ b
n
for all n, then
lim inf
n→∞
a
n
≤ lim inf
n→∞
b
n
show by an example that strict inequality can hold in (b).
Proof:
(a) lim sup
n→∞
(−a
n
) = inf
k≥1
sup{−a
k
, −a
k+1
, ...} = inf
k≥1
{−inf{−a
k
, −a
k+1
, ...}}
= −sup
k≥1
inf{a
k
, a
k+1
, ...} = lim inf
n→∞
a
n
.
(b) lim sup
n→∞
(a
n
+ b
n
) = inf
k≥1
[sup{a
k
+ b
k
, a
k+1
+ b
k+1
, ...}]
= lim inf
k≥1
[sup{a
k
+ b
k
, a
k+1
+ b
k+1
, ...}]
≤ lim inf
k→∞
[sup
n≥k
{a
n
} + sup
n≥k
{b
n
}]
= lim inf
n→∞
[sup{a
n
}] + lim inf
n→∞
[sup{b
n
}]
= lim sup
n→∞
a
n
+ lim sup
n→∞
b
n
.
2
(c) lim inf
n→∞
a
n
= lim
k→inf ty
inf
n≥k
{a
n
} ≤ inf
k→∞
inf
n≥k
{a
k
} = lim inf
n→∞
a
n
.
In (b), the strict inequality can hold. For example, let a
n
= (−1)
n
, b
n
= −(−1)
n
, then a
n
+b
n
=
0, lim sup
n→∞
a
n
= 1, lim sup
n→∞
b
n
= 1, but lim sup
n→∞
(a
n
+ b
n
) = 0 < 2 = 1 + 1 = lim sup
n→∞
a
n
+ lim sup
n→∞
b
n
.2
5, (a) Suppose f : X → [−∞, ∞] and g : X → [−∞, ∞] are measurable. Prove that the sets
{x; f(x) < g(x)}, {x; f(x) = g(x)} are measurable.
(b) Prove that the set of points at which a sequence of measurable real-valued functions converges(to
a finite limit) is measurable.
Proof: (a1) Suppose f, g are measurable on X, then {x; f(x) < g(x)} is measurable. Suppose
{r
n
} is the set of rational in R
1
, we claim that
{x; f(x) < g(x)} =
∞
[
n=1
[{x; f(x) < r
n
}
\
{x; r
n
< g(x)}]
In fact,
x
0
∈ {x; f(x) < g(x)} ⇐⇒ f (x
0
) < g(x
0
)
⇐⇒ ∃r
n
0
, such that f(x
0
) < r
n
0
< g(x
0
)
⇐⇒ x
0
∈
S
∞
n=1
[{x; f(x) < r
n
}
T
{x; r
n
< g(x)}].
For any r ∈ R , {x; f(x) < r} and {x; r < g(x)} are measurable since f, g are measurable on
X. So, by the claim we have proved above, {x; f(x) < g(x)} is measurable.
(a2) By (a1), {x; f(x) = g(x)} = X − [{x; f (x) < g(x)}
S
{x; f(x) > g(x)}] is measurable.
(b) Suppose {f
n
} is a sequence of real-valued measurable functions on (X, <)(a measurable
space), then by Theorem 1.9(c), for any n, m ∈ N, |f
n
(x) −f
m
(x)| is a measurable function as |·|
is a continuous function on R
1
× R
1
. So, {x; |f
n
(x) − f
m
(x)| < a} is a measurable set for any
a ∈ R
1
.
Clearly, the set where {f
n
(x)} has finite limit is given by
A =
+∞
\
k=1
+∞
[
N=1
\
n,m≥N
{x; |f
n
(x) − f
m
(x)| <
1
k
}
by Cauchy’s criterion for convergence.
A is a measurable set because for any n, m ∈ N and k ∈ N, {x; |f
n
(x) − f
m
(x)| <
1
k
} ∈ M
and M is a σ−algebra. 2
6, Let X be an uncountable set, let M be the collection of all sets E ⊂ X such that either E or
E
c
is at most countable, and define µ(E) = 0 in the first case, µ(E) = 1 in the second. Prove that
M is a σ−algebra in X and that µ is a measure on M. Describe the corresponding measurable
functions and their integrals.
Proof: 1.) Since X
c
= ∅ is at most countable, we see that X ∈ M.
If A ∈ M, then either A or A
c
is at most countable, i.e. either A
c
or (A
c
)
c
= A is at most countable,
so A
c
∈ M as well.
If A
n
∈ M for n = 1, 2, 3..., then
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
∈ M, for if
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
is at most countable, we have
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
∈ M and if
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
is not at most countable, then there exists n
0
, such that
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
0
3
is not countable by the fact that a countable union of a sequence of countable sets is countable, so
as A
n
0
∈ M, we must have A
c
n
0
is at most countable. hence for
(
+∞
[
n=1
A
n
)
c
=
+∞
\
n=1
A
c
n
⊂ A
c
n
0
,
we see that (
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
)
c
is at most countable.
Thus M is a σ−algebra in X.
2.) By the definition, µ : 2
X
→ [0, +∞]. Suppose A
i
∈ M for i = 1, 2, 3, ..., A
i
+ A
j
= ∅ if
i 6= j, then either A
i
or A
c
i
is at most countable.
If
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
is countable, then for any n ∈ N, A
n
is also countable.
µ(
+∞
[
n=1
A
n
) = 0 =
+∞
X
n=1
µ(A
n
).
If
S
+∞
n=1
A
n
is not countable, then there exists n
0
∈ N, A
0
is uncountable and A
c
n
0
is at most
countable. Since {A
n
} are mutually disjoint, we have
[
n6=n
0
A
i
=
+∞
[
n=1
A
n
− A
n
0
∈ M.
if
S
n6=n
0
A
i
is uncountable, (
S
n6=n
0
A
n
)
c
is at most countable, this contradicts to A
n
0
⊂ (
S
n6=n
0
A
n
)
c
and A
n
0
is uncountable, then
S
n6=n
0
A
n
is at most countable. So
µ(
+∞
[
n=1
A
n
) = 1 = 0 + 1 =
X
n6=n
0
µ(A
n
) + µ(A
n
0
) =
+∞
X
n=1
µ(A
n
).
3.) Since for any given measurable function f(x) ∈ µ(X), X = {x; f (x) = r}
S
{x; f (x) <
r}
S
{x; f(x) > r}b=E
1
S
E
2
S
E
3
∈ M for any r ∈ R
1
. X ∈ M, µ(X) = 1 implies that there exists
a unique uncountable set E of E
i
, i ∈ {1, 2, 3}.
In fact, since X is uncountable, there exits at least one of E
i
0
is uncountable, then µ(E
i
0
) = 1
and µ(
S
i6=i
0
E
i
) = 0, and there will be a contradiction if there exist at least two uncountable E
i
.
If i
0
= 1, then f(x) = r a.e. [µ] .
If i
0
= 2 or 3, one can take r = sup
µ(E)=0
inf
X\E
|f(x)| and ¯r = inf
µ(E)=0
sup
X\E
|f(x)|.
For the case i
0
= 2, let r → −∞, one will get that there exists a r
1
∈ [r, r), such that
µ{x; f(x) = r
1
} = 1, i.e. f(x) = r
1
a.e. [µ];
For the case i
0
= 3, let r → +∞, one will get that there exists a r
2
∈ (r, ¯r], such that
µ{x; f(x) = r
2
} = 1, i.e. f(x) = r
2
a.e. [µ].
From above all, there exists r ∈ [r, ¯r], such that µ{x; f(x) = r} = 1, i.e. f(x) = r a.e. [µ]. 2
7, Suppose f
n
: X → [0, ∞] is measurable for n = 1, 2, 3, · · ·, f
1
≥ f
2
≥ · · · ≥ 0, f
n
(x) → f(x) as
n → ∞, for every x ∈ X, and f
1
∈ L
1
(µ). Prove that then
lim
n→∞
Z
X
f
n
dµ =
Z
X
fdµ
and show that this conclusion does not follow if the condition “f
1
∈ L
1
(µ)” is omitted.
4
Proof: Since f
1
∈ L
1
(µ), {x; f
1
(x) = +∞} is measurable and µ{x; f
1
(x) = +∞} = 0, i.e.
f(x) < +∞ a.e. [µ]. Since f
1
≥ f
2
≥ ... ≥ f
n
≥ 0 and f
1
∈ L
1
(µ), f
n
∈ L
1
(µ) and f is measurable.
Let A = {x; f
1
(x) = +∞} and A
n
= {x; f
n
(x) = +∞}, then µ(A
n
) ≤ µ(A) = 0. Let
g
n
(x) = f
1
− f
n
if x ∈ A
c
and 0 if x ∈ A, then 0 ≤ g
1
≤ g
2
≤ ... ≤ g
n
≤ ... and g
n
is measurable.
By Fatou’s lemma, 0 ≤
R
X
fdµ =
R
X
lim
n→∞
f
n
dµ ≤ lim inf
n→∞
R
X
f
n
dµ ≤
R
X
f
1
dµ < +∞. By
monotone convergence theorem,
Z
X
f
1
dµ − lim
n→∞
Z
X
f
n
dµ = lim
n→∞
Z
X
g
n
dµ =
Z
X
lim
n→∞
g
n
dµ =
Z
X
(f
1
− f
n
)dµ =
Z
X
f
1
dµ −
Z
X
f
n
dµ.
i.e. − lim
n→∞
R
X
f
n
dµ = −
R
X
fdµ, hence lim
n→∞
R
X
f
n
dµ =
R
X
fdµ.
Counterexample: f
n
(x) = χ
[n,+∞]
and µ is a counting measure on R
1
(see p17 for the definition
of counting measure), then f
1
≥ f
2
≥ ... ≥ f
n
≥ 0.
For any given x ∈ R
1
, f
n
(x) : χ
[n,+∞]
(x) = 0 if n ≥ N(x) if N(x) is large enough, so
f
n
(x) → f(x) = 0 and
R
X
fdµ = 0.
On the other hand, since
R
X
f
n
dµ = µ([n, +∞]) = +∞, lim
n→∞
R
X
f
n
dµ = +∞ 6= 0 =
R
X
fdµ. 2
8, (E is a measurable set in (X, M)) Put f
n
= χ
E
if n is odd, f
n
= 1 − χ
E
if n is even. What is
the relevance of this example to Fatou’s lemma?
Solution: Suppose µ(X) = 1, 0 < µ(E) <
1
2
. Since f
2n
= 1 − χ
E
and f
2n+1
= χ
E
,
R
X
f
2n
dx =
µ(X) − µ(E) = 1 − µ(E) and
R
X
f
2n+1
dx = µ(E), then
Z
X
lim inf
n→∞
f
n
=
Z
E
lim inf
n→∞
f
n
+
Z
E
c
lim inf
n→∞
f
n
=
Z
E
(1 −χ
E
)dµ +
Z
E
c
χ
E
dµ < µ(E) = lim inf
n→∞
Z
X
f
n
dµ.
So, the strict inequality in Fatou’s lemma holds sometimes. 2
9. Suppose µ is a positive measure on X, f : X → [0, +∞] is measurable,
R
X
fdµ = c where
0 < c < ∞, and α is a constant. Prove that
lim
n→+∞
Z
X
n log[1 + (
f
n
)
α
]dµ =
∞, if 0 < α < 1,
c, if α = 1,
0, if 1 < α < ∞.
Hint: If α ≥ 1,then integrands are dominated by αf.If α < 1, Fatou Lemma can be applied.
proof: Let g(x) = αx − n log[1 + (
x
n
)
α
],(α ≥ 1). then g(0) = 0 and
g
0
(x) = α − n
α(
x
n
)
α−1
1
n
1 + (
x
n
)
α
= α[1 −
(
x
n
)
α−1
1 + (
x
n
)
α
]
=
α
1 + (
x
n
)
α
[1 + (
x
n
)
α−1
(
x
n
− 1)]
If x ≥ n, it is clear that g
0
(x) ≥
α(1 + (
x
n
)
α−1
)
1 + (
x
n
)
α
≥ 1.
If 0 < x < n,α ≥ 1 implies that (
x
n
)
α
≤ (
x
n
) ≤ (
x
n
)
1
1 −
x
n
,i.e.
(
x
n
)
α−1
(1 −
x
n
) ≤ 1
5
剩余146页未读,继续阅读
资源评论
- ctz19881282014-05-17不错的答案,有了答案,看起书来就没那么费劲了
shlww
- 粉丝: 27
- 资源: 6
上传资源 快速赚钱
- 我的内容管理 展开
- 我的资源 快来上传第一个资源
- 我的收益 登录查看自己的收益
- 我的积分 登录查看自己的积分
- 我的C币 登录后查看C币余额
- 我的收藏
- 我的下载
- 下载帮助
最新资源
资源上传下载、课程学习等过程中有任何疑问或建议,欢迎提出宝贵意见哦~我们会及时处理!
点击此处反馈
安全验证
文档复制为VIP权益,开通VIP直接复制
信息提交成功