## More Measurable Real-Valued Functions

We want a few more convenient definitions of a measurable real-valued function. To begin with: a real-valued function on a measurable space is measurable if and only if for every real number the set is measurable.

Indeed, say is measurable. If we take then is a Borel set and . The measurability of tells us that is measurable as a subset of .

Conversely, suppose that the given sets are all measurable. If are real numbers, then we can write , and thus

That is, if is any semiclosed interval then is the difference of two measurable sets, and is thus measurable itself. If is the collection of all the subsets for which is measurable, then is a -ring containing all semiclosed intervals. It must then contain all Borel sets, and so is measurable.

The same statement will hold true if we replace by , or by , or by . We walk through the exact same method as before, constructing left- or right-semiclosed intervals — and thus all Borel sets — from open or closed rays as needed.

In fact, we can even restrict to lie in some everywhere-dense subset . For example, we might only check this condition for rational . Indeed, say we want to construct the closed interval . By density, we can find sequences (increasing) and (decreasing) of points in converging to and , respectively. Then we can construct the intervals or , and their intersection is the closed interval we want. Then the closed intervals generate the Borel sets, and we’re done.

All of these proofs, by the way, hinge on the fact that taking preimages and intersections commute with all of our set-theoretic constructions.

Now, if is a nonzero constant function , then is measurable if and only if is a measurable subset of itself. Indeed, , and is either or , according as does or does not contain . And since every must be contained in *some* measurable set, must be measurable for to be measurable.

More generally, the characteristic function of a set is measurable if and only if is a measurable subset of . This time, , and is either or , according as contains or not.

If is a measurable function and is a nonzero real number, then the function is also measurable. Indeed, it’s clear that . We must check that is measurable, but this set is equal to , which is measurable.

Finally, every continuous function is Borel measurable. Indeed, we can write any Borel set as a limit of open sets. The preimage of each open set is open, and thus Borel, and the preimage of the limit is the limit of the preimages, which is again Borel.

[...] the function . If is a positive integer, we have the function . These are all continuous, which implies that they’re Borel measurable, and they send back to itself. We conclude that any positive [...]

Pingback by Composing Real-Valued Measurable Functions I « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 4, 2010 |

[...] continuous function such that if and only if . And since it’s continuous, it’s Borel measurable, and any Borel measurable function is Lebesgue [...]

Pingback by Composing Real-Valued Measurable Functions II « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 5, 2010 |

[...] now we turn to our convenient condition for measurability. Since we’ve handled the sets where and are infinite, we can assume that they’re [...]

Pingback by Adding and Multiplying Measurable Real-Valued Functions « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 7, 2010 |

[...] now let’s use our convenient condition. Given a real number we know that if and only if for some . That is, we can [...]

Pingback by Sequences of Measurable Functions « The Unapologetic Mathematician | May 10, 2010 |

[...] is positive, is negative, and is a Hahn decomposition. Indeed, we know that and are measurable. Thus if is measurable, then is measurable, and we [...]

Pingback by The Jordan Decomposition of an Indefinite Integral « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 29, 2010 |

[...] so that (or ) is a measurable set, then is a measurable function. We will show this using an equivalent definition of measurability — that will be measurable if we can show that for every real number the [...]

Pingback by Measurable Graphs « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 21, 2010 |