Measurable Subspaces II
Last time we discussed how to define a measurable subspace of a measurable space
in the easy case when
is itself a measurable subset of
:
.
But what if isn’t measurable as a subset of
? To get at this question, we introduce the notion of a “thick” subset. We say that a subset
of a measure space
is thick if
for all measurable
. If
is itself measurable (as it often is), this condition reduces to asking that
. If, further,
, then we ask that
. As an example, the maximally nonmeasurable set we constructed is thick.
Now I say that if is a thick subset of a measure space
, if
consists of all intersections of
with measurable subsets of
, and if
is defined by
, then
is a measure space. This definition of
is unambiguous, since if
and
are two measurable subsets of
with
, then
. The thickness of
implies that
, and we know that
Since , the second term must be zero, and so
. Therefore,
, and
is indeed unambiguously defined.
Now given a pairwise disjoint sequence of sets in
, define
to be measurable sets so that
. If we define
then we find
and so . Therefore
which shows that is indeed a measure.

You mean “If $X_0$ is itself measurable (as it often is)”
No, I mean
. Go back to where I defined a measurable space and notice that I specifically did not require that
is itself measurable.
[...] of these subsets is itself measurable as a subset of , we can just define . On the other hand, if is nonmeasurable but thick we can use the same definition for . This time, though, the subsets may not themselves be in , and [...]
Pingback by Measurable Subspaces III « The Unapologetic Mathematician | April 29, 2010 |