## Sets Measurable by an Outer Measure II

Yesterday, we showed that — given an outer measure on a hereditary -ring — the collection of -measurable sets forms a ring. In fact, it forms a -ring. That is, given a countably infinite sequence of -measurable sets, their union is also -measurable. Even better if the are pairwise disjoint, then

To see this, we start with a disjoint sequence and an equation we came up with yesterday:

We can keep going like this, adding in more and more of the :

for every natural number . This finite union is -measurable. This, along the fact that , tells us that

This is true for every , so we may pass to the limit and use the countable subadditivity of

But this is enough to show that is -measurable, and so is closed under countable disjoint unions. And this shows that is closed under countable unions in general, by our trick of replacing a sequence by a disjoint sequence with the same partial unions.

Since the previous inequalities must then actually be equalities, we see that we must have

It’s tempting to simply subtract from both sides, but this might be an infinite quantity. Instead, we’ll simply replace with , which has the same effect of giving us

as we claimed.

If we replace by in this equation, we find that — when restricted to the -ring — is actually countably additive. That is, if we define for , then is actually a measure. Even better, it’s a complete measure.

Indeed, if and , then as well. We must show that is actually -measurable, and so exists and equals zero. But we can easily see that for any

and this is enough to show that is -measurable, and thus that is complete.

[...] on a ring , we can extend it to an outer measure on the hereditary -ring . And then we can restrict this outer measure to get an actual measure on the -ring of -measurable sets. And so we ask: how [...]

Pingback by Measures and Induced Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | March 31, 2010 |

[...] hereditary -ring containing . Given a measure on , it induces an outer measure on , which restricts to a measure on [...]

Pingback by Measurable Covers « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 1, 2010 |

[...] existence is straightforward. We can induce an outer measure, and then restrict it to get . It’s straightforward to verify from the definitions that . And we know that since [...]

Pingback by Extensions of Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 6, 2010 |

[...] the essential difference? What do we know about that we don’t know about ? The measure on is complete. The smaller -ring may not contain all negligible [...]

Pingback by Completions of Measures « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 6, 2010 |

[...] , so (by the completeness of ), and thus . Thus sets of finite measure in are exactly those in for which the outer and [...]

Pingback by Using Measurable Covers and Kernels I « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 12, 2010 |